3rd NHRC - LC-I National Moot Court Competition, 2015 (R)

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TEAM CODE: TC-09
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.L.P. NO. .OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

...APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF X
...RESPONDENT
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................ii-v
2.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................vi
3.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...............................................................................................vii
4.
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS........................................................................................viii
5.
WRITTEN PLEADINGS...............................................................................................1-19
WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?..........................1
I.
WHETHER SECTION 10 OF STATE X EDUCATION RULES, 2014 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?.....4
II.
WHETHER
THE
STATE
SHOULD
BE
DIRECTED
TO
PROVIDE
NUTRITIOUS MIDDAY MEAL BEFOR MAKING IT COMPULSORY TO

SEND THE CHILDREN OF SAID AGE GROUP TO SCHOOL?......................13
6.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF......................................................................................................ix
Page i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Acts Referred:
1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
3. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
4. State X Education Rules, 2014.
Abbreviations used:
1. AIR
All India Reporter
2. Anr
Anothers
3. Ed.
Edition
4. etc.
Etcetera
5. HC
High Court
6. Honble
Honourable
7. i.e.
That is
8. ILR
Indian Law Reporter
9. Ltd.
Limited
10. MDMS
Mid Day Meal Scheme
11. NCPCR
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
12. NHRC
National Human Rights Commission
13. No.
Number
14. Ors.
Others
15. p.
Page
16. Rs.
Rupees
17. RTE
Right To Education
18. SC
Supreme Court
19. SCC
Supreme Court Cases
20. SLP
Special Leave Petition
21. U.N
United Nation
22. U.O.I
Union of India
23. UDHR
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Page ii

24. UNESCO United Nation Economic Social and Cultural Rights
25. v.
Versus
26. vs.
Versus
Books Referred:
1. Bupinder Zutshi, Mondira Dutta,Child Labour Rehabilitation in India,, Pentagon Press,
2003.
2. D.J.De , Constitution of India (vol. 2) 2nd Ed. Asia Law House, Hyderabad.
3. Dr. Devinder Singh, Child Labour& Right to Education, Central Law Publications, First
edition 2013.
4. Dr. J.J.R. Upadhaya, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency 7th edition.
5. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constituion Of India, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Publishers Nagpur, 14 Edition, 2010, Volume .
6. Justiice Palok Basu, Law Relating to Protection of Human Rights under the Indian
Constitution And Allied Laws, Modern Law Publications, 2007
7. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur, 6th ed.2010.
8. Pandey, J. N., The Constitutional Law of India, 49th ed.
9. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.2001.
10. Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law, , Oxford University Press, 1994 9th edition, 2005.
Cases Referred:
1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and others 1999 SCC..10
2. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union Of India 2008 6 SC..5,6
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 1984 2 SCR 67.........17
4. Bower v. Peate (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 321 .14
5. Brown v. Board of Education 98 LAWYER ED. 873.........17
6. C.C.E. v. Standard Motor Products, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1298..3
7. Chellammal v. Masanan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 498...2
8. Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony AIR 2000 SC 2773..2
9. Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty cinema, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1107 .8
10. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 65 2,3
Page iii

11. Gibbins and Proctor, 1891 64 LT 594..5
12. Harris & Harris, R v (1993)...5
13. M.C. Mehta v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others 1996 6 SCC 756.12
14. Maganbhai v. Ishwarbhai, A.I.R. 1984 Guj. 69. .14
15. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority A.I.R 2002 S.C. 20351
16. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 Suppl 2 SCR 51..17
17. Pritam Singh v. The State Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1950 SC 169.1
18. Royal Educational and Social v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi And Ors 2014 DELHI HC..15
19. Rylands v. Fletcher 1868 LR 3 HL 33014
20. Sccy. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806 .2
21. Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher 1949 2 KB 481 CA 8
22. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laksmi Vishnu Textile Mills (2008) 13 S.C.C. 323 2
23. Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr. 2010 S.C6
24. State of Gujrat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212 .7
25. Tarry v. Ashton 1876 (1) QBD 314.14
26. Union Carbide Corporation etc. v. Union of India etc. 1992 A.I.R. 248...1
27. Unni Krishnan J.P. and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors 1993(1) SCC 64516,17
28. Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors, (1911) All ER Rep 241.10
29. Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. v. English (1938) A.C. 57.8
Dictionaries Referred:
1. Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009).
2. Cambridge Dictionary of American English, Cambridge (UK) (2000).
3. The Oxford English Dictionary (11th Ed. 2008).

Web links Referred:
1. http ://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/07/world-hunger-crisis-food-for-thought-action/
2. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov results/data_files/india/Final_PPT_2011_chapter6.pdf
3. http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp207424.pdf
4. http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend86.htm
5. http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report165.pdf
Page iv

6. http://mhrd.gov.in/rte_rules
7. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Education-is-key-to-abolish-childlabour/articleshow/4656555.cms
Websites Referred:
1. indiankanoon.org
2. judis.nic.in
3. manupatra.com
4. scconline.co.in
5. sci.nic.in
Page v

STATEMENT OF FACTS
---------------------------------Making Education a Fundamental Right-------------------------------86th Amendment Act, 2002 in the Constitution added Article 21A making Right to Education a
Fundamental Right. Parliament had enacted the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009, where States have been given the onus of making their respective rules for the
accomplishment of the goal of Education by means of positive steps.
-------------------------------------------Catastrophic Incident---------------------------------------------On 28th October 2014, 22 children died and 37 others were admitted to hospital after consuming
the midday meal provided in the Government Girls School of District Y in State X.
Consequently, Mr. Pannalal and other parents became reluctant to send their children to school.
---------------------------Consequences of Inspection by Local Authorities--------------------------On 10th November, the Education Department officials observed continuous absence of children
from School since 29th October, 2014 and reported to Directorate of Education and it served
notice to the parents. It was also stated that the penalties would be imposed in case of a nonreply. Mr. Pannalal and other similarly placed parents gave a joint reply stating vividly that they
could not jeopardize the lives of their children by sending them to school due to the peril of
adulterated midday meal. The authorities imposed a fine of Rs. 1300.
---------------------------------------------Approached NHRC---------------------------------------------The aggrieved parents requested the Commission to relieve them from the penalty and from
compulsorily sending their children to the jaws of Death. The Commission after the survey
reported that highly adulterated food incapable of consumption cooked in unhygienic Conditions
was served in the State X. After its perusal NHRC filed petition contending High Court of State
X to strike down section 10 of State X Education Rules, 2014 as violative of the right to life and
direct the government of State X to provide nutritious midday meals in the schools.
----------------------------------------Decision of the High Court-----------------------------------------HC upheld section 10 of the State X Education Rules, 2014, accepted the State governments
reply regarding hygienic midday meals were and passed no direction against the government on
this issue. The NHRC has filed an appeal in the S.C. scheduled for Hearing on 21st February.
Page vi

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Preliminary Objection:
WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
I.
II.
I.
THAT THE PRESENT SLP IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

THAT NHRC HAS NO LOCUS STANDI
WHETHER
SECTION
10
OF
STATE
EDUCATION
RULES,
2014
IS
CONSTITUTIONAL?
A. That there was a necessity for enacting section 10 of the State X Education Rules, 2014.
B. That the section is in consonance with the provision of the Constitution.
C. That the section is in consonance with the intension of the parliament.
D. That the provision of section 10 fulfills other objects as well:
a. That education is the key to abolish child labour.
b. That better implementation of compulsory education improves literacy rate.
E. That the parents were indifferent.
II.
WHETHER THE STATE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NUTRITIOUS

MIDDAY MEAL BEFOR MAKING IT COMPULSORY TO SEND THE CHILDREN OF
SAID AGE GROUP TO SCHOOL?
A. That the report of the State itself provides that nutrition was ensured.
B. That providing midday meal in the schools is an incentive.
C. That the primary object of RTE Act as well as of Article 21A of the Constitution is to
provide education.
D. That the incident that took place in district Y was just an exception.
Page vii

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Preliminary Objection:
WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL BY NHRC IS NOT MAINTAINABLE?
The powers given to Supreme Court by Art.136 are in the nature residuary powers which are
exercisable outside the purview of the ordinary law relating to appeal in cases where the needs
of justice demands the interference by the highest Court of the land. Thus in the present case
there has been no miscarriage of Justice instead the order of the High Court has preserved and
secured the Fundamental Rights of the Children. Hence, the respondent pleads that the case
should not be admitted.
I.
WHETHER THE SECTION 10 OF STATE X EDUCATION RULES, 2014 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?
It is stated that Section 10 of the State X Education Rules is harmonious with the provisions of
the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India by means of Article 21A directs that the
States must provide for Free and Compulsory Education to Children in the age group of 6-14.
The intention of the Legislature is vividly clear that it wanted to ensure universalisation of
Education and also it discusses about the onus on the Parents to send their Children to School as
enshrined in Article 51A (k) of the Constitution. This section 10 fulfills various other objectives
also like abolition of child labour etc. Hence, the respondent requests that the section be upheld.
II.
WHETEHR THE STATE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NUTRITIOUS

MIDDAY MEAL BEFORE MAKING IT COMPULSORY TO SEND THE
CHILDREN OF SAID AGE GROUP TO SCHOOL?
Report of the State itself provides that the State had ensured good quality food grains and the
provision of Midday Meal in the Schools was an incentive and when the state is providing proper
food then why should it seek any directions. Also, the central aim of RTE Act as well as of
Article 21A is to provide Education which is being duly fulfilled by the State. On the basis of a
solitary and lonesome incident we cannot generalize that nutritious food was not being provided
for. Therefore, the respondent prays that no directions be issued in this regard and the decision of
the High Court be upheld.
Page viii

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
Preliminary Objection
WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
I. THAT THE PRESENT SLP IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
A) Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
1) That over and above the constitutional provisions regulating to the Supreme Courts appellate
jurisdiction, Art. 136(1)1 empowers the Supreme Court to grant, special leave to appeal.
2) The powers given to Supreme Court by Art.136 are in the nature of special or residuary
powers which are exercisable outside the purview of the ordinary law relating to appeal in
cases where needs of justice demands the interference by the highest Court of the land. 2 It
vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the sense that there are no words in Art.
136(1) qualifying that power.3
B) That power of the SC under Art. 136 is subject to Rule of Self-Limitation.
3) That the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art. 136 of the Constitution on the Honble
Supreme Court is discretionary.4 It does not confer a right to appeal on a party to litigation; it
only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on the Honble Supreme Court to be
exercised for satisfying the demands of justice.5 On the one hand, it is an exceptional power
to be exercised sparingly, with caution and care and to remedy extraordinary situations or
situations occasioning gross failure of justice; on the other hand, it is an overriding power
where under the Court may generously step in to impart justice and to remedy injustice. 6
4) The Honble Supreme Court in Pritam Singh v. The State,7 has held that the power under Art.
136 has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only, and as far as possible, a
1
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal
from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India.
2
Union Carbide Corporation etc. v. Union of India etc. 1992 A.I.R. 248.
3
Durga Das Basu, Case Book on Indian Constitutional Law (2nded, 2007), Pg. 463.
4
D.J.De , Constitution of India (vol. 2) 2nd Ed. Asia Law House, Hyderabad.
5
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law(with Constitutional Documents), (6th Ed., vol. 1., 2010), Pg. 314-15.
6
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority A.I.R 2002 S.C. 2035.
7
A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 169.
Page 1

more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range
of matters which can come up before it under this Article. The Court should grant special
leave to appeal in those cases where special circumstances are shown to exist.8
5) While Honble Constitutional Bench deprecating the invoking of individualized justice has
held that it gives confusing signals and ushers judicial chaos.9 Honble Supreme Court has
pointed out in which situations power under Art. 136 are to be invoked. For example, where
extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognized grounds are made out.10 Honble
Supreme Court has also held that where the High Court had interfered with the wrong
exercise of discretion by a subordinate authority, the Supreme Court would not interfere with
the order of the High Court if it would be clearly in the interest of justice.11
6) In the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT12 the Honble Supreme Court has stated
that the limitations on the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Apex Court
by Art. 136 are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional
and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in
special and extraordinary situations.
7) In the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare13, where
appeal in the SC but was dismissed as the SC held that the High Court can pass orders to
protect and preserve a very fundamental right of citizen under Article 19(1) (a)14.
8) In the case of Society for Un-aided Private School of Rajasthan v. U.O.I. & Anr. 15, it has
been held that, By judicial decisions, right to education has been read into right to life in
Article 21. A child who is denied right to access education is not only deprived of his
right to live with dignity, he is also deprived of his right to freedom of speech and
expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a).
9) Hence, it is humbly submitted that no injustice has been done in the instant case. The
judgment of the High Court is not in any way prejudicial to the rights of the children, in fact,
the judgment is preserving the rights of the children by upholding the section 10 of the
8
Prof. Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (8th Ed. Allahabad Law Agency 2011).
Sccy. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806.
10
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laksmi Vishnu Textile Mills (2008) 13 S.C.C. 323.
11
Chellammal v. Masanan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 498.
12
(1955) 1 S.C.R. 941.
13
A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2773.
14
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (vol. 2) 4th Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2004.
15
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 95 OF 2010.
9
Page 2

Education Rules and ensuring the children their fundamental right to education guaranteed
under Article 21A of the Constitution. Hence there is no miscarriage of justice or any
extraordinary circumstance to invoke the Special Power of Supreme Court. It is a special
power and is to be exercised only in those cases where special circumstances are shown to
exist,16 and that whenever there is an injustice done to a party in a proceeding before a court
or tribunal, or where there is miscarriage of justice, or where a question of law of general
public importance arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court, this jurisdiction
can always be invoked.17
II. THAT NHRC HAS NO LOCUS STANDI
10) It is humbly submitted that NHRC didnt have any locus standi either at the time of petition
in High Court or at this time when appeal has been filed to the Supreme Court. This is
because what the parents had requested is to waive off the penalty imposed on them and
imposing penalty is in no way a human rights concern and NHRC deals with complaints
regarding Human Rights only. The definition of Human Rights has been given under section
2 (1) (d)18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 12 of the same act limits the
scope of the functions of NHRC and they are limited to human rights only. Thus, the writ
petition filed by NHRC in High Court was inherently flawed. Moreover, the parents didnt
approach the appropriate authorities. Firstly, the guidelines of Government of India, as
provided by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department Of School and
Literacy19 dated: 26th October 2012 states as follows:
The school shall prescribe the procedures and mechanism to deal with and decide any
complaint or discrimination made or submitted by any child belonging to the weaker section
or the disadvantaged group, and it shall be obligatory on the part of the school to decide
such complaints within maximum period of 60 days from the date of receipt or submission of
such complaint.
11) The state based on the above guideline provides for a mechanism to the parents and
guardians to complaint within school authorities about any grievance or injury. In the instant
16
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 65.

C.C.E. v. Standard Motor Products, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1298.
18
Human rights means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.
19
Guidelines of Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department Of School and
Literacy (26th October 2012, at 4:05 P.M.) from http://mhrd.gov.in/rte_rules.
17
Page 3

case the parents have not approached the school authorities in this matter. They have not
taken any action to bring the problem in the notice of the school authorities. Therefore duty
on the part of the parents has not been performed effectively.
12) Secondly, a redressal mechanism has been provided in the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 under section 3120 and 3221. Hence, if the parents had a
grievance they should have gone to NCPCR. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the parents
didnt approach the right authority.
I. WHETHER THE SECTION 10 OF STATE X EDUCATION RULES, 2014 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL?
A. THAT THERE WAS A NECESSITY FOR ENACTING SECTION 10 OF THE
STATE X EDUCATION RULES, 2014
13) It is most humbly submitted that the parents had in a way committed an offence. In the case
of Gibbins and Proctor, it was held that the parents have a duty to take proper care of their
20
1.The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted under section 3, or, as the case may be,
the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights constituted under section 17, of the Commissions for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), shall, in addition to the functions assigned to them under that
Act, also perform the following functions, namely:a. examine and review the safeguards for rights provided by or under this Act and recommend measures for
their effective implementation;
b. inquire into complaints relating to child's right to free and compulsory education; and
c. take necessary steps as provided under sections 15 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child
Rights Act.
2. The said Commissions shall, while inquiring into any matters relating to child's right to free and compulsory
education under clause (c) of sub-section (1), have the same powers as assigned to them respectively under
sections 14 and 24 of the said Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act.
3. Where the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has not been constituted in a State, the
appropriate Government may, for the purpose of performing the functions specified in clauses (a) to (c) of
sub-section (1), constitute such authority, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as may
be prescribed.
21
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 31, any person having any grievance relating to the right of a
child under this Act may make a written complaint to the local authority having jurisdiction.
2. After receiving the complaint under sub-section (1), the local authority shall decide the matter within a period
of three months after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
3. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the local authority may prefer an appeal to the State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights or the authority prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 31, as the case may be.
4. The appeal preferred under sub-section (3) shall be decided by State Commission for Protection of Child
Rights or the authority prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 31, as the case may be, as provided under
clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 31.
Page 4

children.22 Parents have a duty to take proper care of their children, and if they fail to do so
they can be criminally liable for the consequences.23
14) Commission and omission is a punishable offence. Omission is a failure to carry out or
perform an act. Omission is a neglect of duty. If a person fails to act knowingly that his/her
failure would cause a harm or injury to other person(s), then such a failure constitutes an
omission. In the light of statement of facts of this case the parents have omitted to perform
their legal duty to send their children to school. They are depriving their children from their
right to free and compulsory education and doing such an action the future of the child is
kept in dark and denying a child of his basic right to education which is implicit in Right to
life thus is committing an offence of severe nature for which the parents must be penalized.
15) Thus, it is even the rule in common law that parents have a duty to take care of their children
and as education is also a fundamental right under Article 2124 of the Constitution and thus a
duty arises on part of the parents in this regard. It is worth mentioning here that it is also a
fundamental duty of the parents under Article 51A (k)25.
Duty on the part of parents
16) It is a basic principle of jurisprudence that every Right has a correlative Duty and every Duty
has a correlative Right.26 Both Right and Duty go hand in hand. Therefore, in the light of the
present case the children are conferred with the right to free and compulsory education, it
equally casts a duty upon the parents of such children to send their children to school. This
duty has been enumerated under section 1027 of RTE Act and under Article 51A(k) of the
Indian constitution.
17) In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union Of India28, while referring to parental duty regarding
education of their children, Supreme Court observed that article 51A (k) indicates that it is
parents, not the state, who are responsible for making sure children wake up on time and
reach school. Thus, Article 21A read with Article 51A (k) distributes an obligation amongst
22
[1891] 64 LT 594.
Harris & Harris, R v (1993).
24
The State shall 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."
25
(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward
between the age of six and fourteen years.
26
Justice Palok Basu, Law relating to protection of human right (Modern Law Publication 2nd Ed. 2007)
27
It shall be the duty of every parent or guardian to admit or cause to be admitted his or her child or ward, as the
case may be, to an elementary education in the neighbourhood school.
28
Decided on 10 April, 2008.
23
Page 5

the state and parents; the state is concerned with free education, parents with
compulsory. Notwithstanding parental duty, the state also has a role to play in ensuring that
compulsory education is feasible. It was further held that, Fundamental duties, as defined in
Article 51A, are not made enforceable by a writ of court just as the fundamental rights are,
but it cannot be lost sight of that 'duties' in Part IVA - Article 51A are prefixed by the same
word 'fundamental' which was prefixed by the founding fathers of the Constitution to
'rights' in Part III. Every citizen of India is fundamentally obliged to develop the scientific
temper and humanism. He is fundamentally duty bound to strive towards excellence in all
spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels
of endeavour and achievements. State is, all the citizens placed together and hence though
Article 51A does not expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that
the duty of every citizen of India is the collective duty of the State."
18) The Constitution directs both burdens to achieve one end: the compulsory education of
children free from the barriers of cost, parental obstruction or State inaction. Thus, Articles
21A and 51A (k) balance the relative burdens on the parents and the State. Thus, the right to
education envisages a reciprocal agreement between the State and the parents.29
19) It is submitted that there is a dire need for Carrot and Stick approach In Ashok Kumar
Thakur V. Union Of India30, taking note of the failure of the government to effectively
implement the mandate contained in article 21A, the court advocated adoption of carrot
and stick approach i.e., adoption of stringent measures for the implementation of the noble
provision and court also rendered detailed recommendations on the content of the central
legislation pertaining to compulsory education. Among those valuable recommendations
were need to penalizing employers and parents who prevent and do not ensure attendance of
students in schools, financial incentives to poor families for regular school attendance and
criminal penalty or parents who despite availing them fail to send children to school,
increased budgetary allocation and infrastructural support, provision for quality education.
As per Justice Dalveer Bhandari:
It has become necessary that the Government set realistic targets within it must fully
implement article 21A regarding free and compulsory education for the entire country. The
29
30
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr. 2010 S.C.
Supra Note 28.
Page 6

government should suitably revise budget allocation for education. The priorities have to be
set correctly. The most important fundamental right may be article 21a, which, in the larger
interest of the nation, must be fully implemented. Without article 21a, the other fundamental
rights are effectively rendered meaningless. Education stands above other right, as ones
ability to enforce ones fundamental rights flows from ones education. This is ultimately why
the judiciary must oversee government spending on the free and compulsory education.
20) Thus, there was a necessity to enact this section 10 of the Education rules, so, that the
children are not deprived of their fundamental right to education.
B. THAT THE SECTION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF
CONSTITUTION
21) The Preamble to the constitution which seeks to provide justice, social, economic and
political to all the citizens, implies that such goals are impossible to be attained unless
education is provided to the citizens because a person can claim justice only when he is
aware of the right available to him and his awareness comes only through education.
22) The Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted on 12th December,
2002, to amend the Constitution of India. With a view to making right to free and
compulsory education a fundamental right, the Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Bill,
1997 was introduced in Parliament to insert a new article, namely, article 21A conferring on
all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years the right to free and compulsory education. The
said Bill was scrutinised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human
Resource Development and the subject was also dealt with in its 165th Report by the
Law Commission of India.31
23) The 165th Law Commission Report, was on free and compulsory education for children,
and was given on November, 1998 and its relevant excerpt is as follows:
3.7.10. Article 32 of the said UN Convention provides:
State Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure
the implementation of this article.
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective
31
Eighty-Sixth Amendment Act, 2002(27th January,2015 10:03 A.M.) available at:

http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend86.htm.
Page 7

enforcement of this article."
..
6.2. The Commission has noted with some satisfaction that so far 19 States/Union territories
have enacted legislation making primary/elementary -education compulsory.
These are
Assam. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana,' Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &
Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu,
Uttar Pradesh, west Bengal, Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. These enactments are in
three parts:
(i) Power vested in the State Government to notify the area in which the Act can be
implemented.
(ii) Penalties for not sending children to school.
(iii) Power in a vested authority to grant exemption32
24) In the light of the statement of facts that state has imposed penalty on the parents/guardians,
because, it has became imperative for the State to enact Section 10 for imposing penalty on
parents for not sending their children to school. Having such a strict implementation of
Article 21A of right to free and compulsory education, so that the parents do not deprive
children from availing them their fundamental right of education. The future of the children
would be left in dark if such strict provision will not be enforced. Such parents who deprive
their children from going to school being in a sole position to decide what is right and what is
wrong for their children, such parents must be penalized for their act.
C. THAT THE SECTION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTENSION OF THE
PARLIAMENT
25) Firstly, the facts stated in the Statement of Objectives and Reasons appended to any
legislation are evidence of the legislative intention. They indicate the thought process of the
elected representatives of the People and their cognizance of the prevalent state of affairs,
impelling them to enact. Therefore, they constitute important factors among others will be
taken into consideration by the Court in judging the reasonableness of any restriction, more
so when the facts stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons are taken to be correct.33
The intension of the legislature is to be gathered from the whole of the statute and every part
32
165th Report on Free and Compulsory Education, 1998 (27th January, 2015 11:37A.M.) available at
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report165.pdf.
33
State of Gujrat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212.
Page 8

of it taken together and compared with other parts. It may also be stated that in a statute the
law has to be read as a whole so as to make it valid and, if possible, an interpretation leading
to contrary position should be avoided.34 The scope and intension of the legislature, while
making the act, was to provide education to every child of the country.
26) Referring to the intension of the Parliament, We, therefore, think it appropriate to rely upon
the famous and oft-quoted principle relied on by Lord Denning in the case of Seaford Court
Estates Ltd. v. Asher35 wherein he held:
"[W]hen a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He
must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, ... and then
he must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the
legislature. ... A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had
themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out ? He
must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act
is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases."
27) Secondly, it is submitted that one of the main objective of the act is to provide for free and
compulsory education to the children between the age group of 6 to 14 years. It is the rule of
interpretation of statutes that the intention of the State Legislature or of the Parliament as the
case may be may be may be inferred from the preamble of the statute. It is evident from the
following lines:
If any doubt arises, from the terms employed in the legislature it has always been held a safe
means of collecting the intention to call in aid the ground and cause in making the statute and
to have recourse to the preamble which according to Chief Justice Dyser in Stowe v. Lord
Zouch is to open the minds of the makers of the Act and the mischief which they intended to
redress.36
28) But as there is no preamble attached to RTE Act, 2009 so the other recourse that is taken is to
the long title of the Act. It is well settled that a long title of an act is admissible as an aid to
its construction. The long title often precedes the preamble must be distinguished with the
short title, the former taken along with the preamble or even in its absence is a good guide
34
Corporation of Calcutta v.Liberty cinema, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1107.

[1949] 2 K.B. 481 (CA).
36
Hakeem Ijaiya, The Constructive And Contextual Roles Of A Preamble In Statutory Interpretation ( 29th January
2015 at 5:03 P.M.) available at: www.law.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/private/ho_ijaiya/7.pdf.
35
Page 9

regarding the object, scope or purpose of the Act, the latter being only an abbreviation for
purposes of reference is not a useful aid of construction.37 The long title of the said act is as
follows:
An Act to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to
fourteen years.
Thus, it is clear from the above title of the act that the primary objective of the state is to
ensure elementary education to the children and that hereby the state is fulfilling this
objective by enacting State Education Rules.
29) The state is just ensuring that the object and the reason behind the enactment of the act are
very well achieved. The state X made education rules under the above provision and state is
under a duty to provide and ensure free and compulsory education to the children of age
group from 6 to 14 years under section 838 of the RTE Act.
30) Lastly, that the rules made under the state X education rule, reasonable and practical
interpretation of the rules must be provided instead of striking it down, should be preferred.
In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and others 39 it was held that,
We are of the opinion that the remedy does not lie in striking down the impugned rules the
existence of which is necessary in the larger interest of the institution. Providing
education to the children and taking enforcement measures for its strict application is always
done by the state in the larger interest of the society. Children are known to be the nation
builders, for the development of children education is of paramount importance.
31) Therefore, the action taken by the state was in good faith to fulfill object and purpose of the
RTE Act under Section 3740 of the Act.
D. THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10 FULFILLS OTHER OBJECTS AS WELL
37
Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositors, (1911) All ER Rep 241.
The appropriate Government shall(a) provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child:
Explanation--The term "compulsory education" means obligation of the appropriate Government to-(i) provide free elementary education to every child of the age of six to fourteen years; and
(ii) ensure compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every child of the age of
six to fourteen years;
39
1999, S.C.C.
40
Protection of action taken in good faith: No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central
Government, the State Government, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, the State Commission
for Protection of Child Rights, the local authority, the School Management Committee or any person, in respect of
anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done, in pursuance of this Act, or any rules or order made
thereunder.
38
Page 10

a. That Education is the Key to abolish Child Labour
32) As the High Court has also said in its judgment that education is a method to eradicate child
labour, the same way the State contends that one of the objective behind enacting this section
was to eradicate child labour.
33) Free and Compulsory Education and total abolition of child labour are central to human
development and fundamental for enhanced citizenship. There has to be zero tolerance of
children being out of school and child labour laws have to be in sync with RTE 2009, said
NCPCR chairman Shantha Sinha41
34) Highlighting how education can transform a child's life, especially girls, Shantha Sinha,
chairperson, NCPCR, said: "Going to school opens up new avenues and opportunities with
girls learning to think, explore, discover, question and acquire knowledge. Besides, it also
delays an early marriage. Only if all working children are in school can it lead to equity and
justice, further deepening the foundation of our democracy." She added: "On this day, we
must create a social trust and faith in the poor, to stand by them, and celebrate their victories
for having taken the right decision to send their children to schools instead of work."42
35) Child labour is nearly always rooted in poverty compounded by other forms of
marginalisation gender, language, ethnicity, disability and rural-urban differences,
said Koichiro Matsuura, director general, UNESCO. "This is why the current economic
and financial crisis calls for heightened vigilance and urgent measures to mitigate its
impact on the poorest. According to forecasts, an additional 50 to 90 million people could
be driven to extreme poverty. Evidence shows that child labour often increases during
an economic downturn, as parents withdraw their children from schools to
supplement family income and delay the entry of their youngest children. Girls are
all the more vulnerable in times of crises," added Matsuura.43
36) It is no doubt true that the main objective of the RTE act is to provide free and
compulsory education to all the children in India between the aged of 6 and 14 years
but it indirectly imposes a duty to the state by the term compulsory to ensure that such
children are educated. Looking from this angel, the Act emphasizes eradication of the
41
The Hindu, December 19, 2011 At 16.

Sakshi Khattar, Education is key to abolish child labour, (27th January,2015 12:38 P.M.) available at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Education-is-key-to-abolish-childlabour/articleshow/4656555.cms.
43
Ibid.
42
Page 11

child labour because the target of universalisation of elementary education is
realistically unachievable unless child labour I eradicated from our society.44
37) The following excerpt from M.C. Mehta v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others,45, must be
noted:
"It may be that the problem would be taken care of to some extent by insisting on
compulsory education. Indeed, Neera thinks that if there is at all a blueprint for tackling
the problem of child labour, it is education. Even if it were to be so, the child of a poor
parent would not receive education, if per force it has to earn to make the family meet
both the ends. Therefore, unless the family is assured of income allude, problem of child
labour would hardly get solved; and it is this vital question which has remained almost
unattended."
b. That better implementation of compulsory education improves literacy rate
38) Literacy rate has surged forward from 64.83 per cent in 2001 to 74.04 per cent in 2011
showing an increase of 9.21 percentage points.46Thus, a significant progress was made from
2001 to 2011 in terms of literacy and some of the reasons for that are like the introduction of
Article 21A in the Constitution and the enactment of RTE Act, 2009. And the State in this
case has enacted that section only in furtherance of the objectives as laid down. There is a
direct relationship in education and literacy rate.
39) The enforcement of provision in the section 10 helps in achieving multi faceted goals.
Providing education to children eradicates child labour on the other hand increase the literacy
rate, therefore on the whole it leads to upliftment of the society.
E. THAT THE PARENTS WERE INDIFFERENT
40) For the sake of arguments even if we accept but do not submit, if the parents were primarily
concerned with the Health of the Students they would have approached the School authorities
ever since they had been complaining of Stomach problems as mentioned in the Statement
of facts.
They stated that their children had been complaining of stomach problems every now and
then ever since they started going to school
44
Ibid.
(1996) 6 S.C.C 756.
46
State of Literacy (27thJanuary,2015 at 4:05P.M.),available at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-provresults/data_files/india/Final_PPT_2011_chapter6.pdf.
45
Page 12

41) They i.e. the parents, thus did not take any action at that very instance. It is now that the
parents have woken up from their slumber, when the penalty is being imposed on them that
they are contending that the School must provide for nutritious and healthy food. Had they
made a mention of the Stomach problems of the Students then and there the food could have
been checked but this act of the parents is referring to that for parents their primary
consideration is their resources i.e. their money and not the health of the children.
II.
WHETHER THE STATE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NUTRITIOUS

MIDDAY MEAL BEFOR MAKING IT COMPULSORY TO SEND THE
CHILDREN OF SAID AGE GROUP TO SCHOOL?
A. THAT THE REPORT OF THE STATE ITSELF PROVIDES THAT NUTRITION

WAS ENSURED
42) The respondent humbly submits that the food provided by the state government in the whole
state X was nutritious. The state has followed his duty under Article 4747 of the Indian
Constitution which provides for that the State is responsible for the health and well-being of
its citizens. The state is under a mandatory obligation, as it is a fundamental duty to provide
for nutritious food to children and therefore, state is already acting in a conscious and
responsible manner and thus does not provide any directions by the court.
43) In fact, the State has followed due procedure in checking the samples of the food. The
relevant excerpt of the clarification made later on is as follows:
In reply to allegations of NHRC regarding unhygienic food, the State Government stated
that due procedure had been followed in awarding the contract for supply of food in
Government Girls School, which included checking samples of food before allotting the
tender.
44) Even if for the sake of arguments we admit, but not submit that there was unhealthy food
supplied in the school, then as
45) a general rule the master, or the State in the instant case, is not liable for the acts committed
by the independent contractor. The fact which comes through the above clarification is that
47
Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health:
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the
improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious
to health.
Page 13

the State had contracted out the work of supplying food.
46) An independent contractor is one over whom the employer has no control. In the instant case
also the State had no control over the contractor except that while allotting the tender the
State could test the samples first and then only could allot the tender and this duty has been
profoundly performed by the State. This means that the State did the best it could do.
47) But as has always been said, No right is an absolute right. Here also, there are certain
exceptions to this rule which are as follows:
i. If an employer authorizes the doing of an illegal act, or subsequently ratifies the same,
he can be made liable of such act.48
ii. An employer is liable for the act of an independent contractor in cases of strict liability
and this rule was laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher49.
iii. The liability of the employer also arises for the dangers caused on or near highway
(Tarry v. Ashton50).
iv. If the wrong caused to the plaintiff is nuisance in the form of withdrawal of support
from neighbours land the defendant would be liable irrespective of the fact that the act
causing the said damage was done by independent contractor.51
v. When the tort results in the breach of a masters common law duties to his servants he
would be liable for the same and it is no defence that the master was acting through an
independent contractor.52
48) Thus, if we apply the facts as stated by the proposition and clarifications the State does not
fall under any of the above listed exceptions. Thus, the State is not liable for the acts done by
the independent contractor. In the first instance the state is providing nutritious food for
education, fulfilling his duty properly as mentioned under various laws and also under the
Constitution as it had followed the due procedure of law as well as ensured that good quality
food grains are supplied in the schools.
B. THAT PROVIDING MIDDAY MEAL IN THE SCHOOLS IS AN INCENTIVE
49) The World Food Programme, Home-Grown School Feeding Project for July 200753 states
48
See Maganbhai v. Ishwarbhai, A.I.R. 1984 Guj. 69.

(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
50
(1876) 1 Q.B.D. 314.
51
Bower v. Peate (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 321.
52
See Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. v. English (1938) A.C. 57.
49
Page 14

that, The School Mid-Day Meal is meant to be in addition to, and not a substitute for,
meals which parents should in any case provide to children at home, or were providing prior
to the introduction of the cooked mid-day meal programme.
50) In the case of Royal Educational and Social v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi And Ors54 the courts
held that, This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that most of the State Governments in
India have introduced mid-day meal schemes to encourage children from poor strata to
attend school and pursue education.
51) The Government is clear in its stance that mid-day meals are an addition and not a
substitute to home meals. Despite being tarnished a tad by corruption and mismanagement
and coming under suspicion for the quality of food provided under the programme, MDM
Programme has been shown to improve school attendance and overall health of children. It is
heart-wrenching to observe children bring their younger siblings for meals, highlighting in
crimson, the pressing need for food security to the poor.55
52) The respondent submits that the mid day meal provided in the schools is merely an incentive.
Therefore the right to education of children cannot be waived of on the basis of mid day meal
implementation. As the most important and primary objective of rte is providing education
and all other objects come after this.
C. THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF RTE ACT AS WELL AS OF ARTICLE 21A IS
TO PROVIDE EDUCATION
53) The State submits that the primary objective of enacting the rules was to achieve
universalisation of education for children in the of 6-14 years age group in furtherance of
which, Article 21A of the Indian Constitution as well as of the RTE Act, 2009 were
enacted.
54) Article 21A, as inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, provides
for free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as
a Fundamental Right in such manner as the state may by law, determine.
55) It is submitted that education is of transcendental importance. The State X is empowered to
make rules for the State carrying out the provision of the Right of Children to Free and
53
India a desk Review of mid-day meals programme, July 2007 (29th January,2015 at 7:03 P.M.) available at:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp207424.pdf.
54
2014 Delhi H.C.
55
Shruti Venukumar, World Hunger Crisis: Food for Thought & Action (29th January,2015 at 7:25 P.M.)available
at: http ://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/07/world-hunger-crisis-food-for-thought-action/.
Page 15

Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The state has power to take steps for ensuring compliance
of the provision of RTE Act under Section 38(1) of the said act.56
56) The respondent submits that education is of fundamental importance in an individuals life
and one of the most important aspects of the life of an individual. Even before the
amendment in 2002, which added Article 21A into the Indian Constitution, this was given
importance and it was held that it flows from right to life as provided by the Indian
Constitution under Article 21. We can just say that what was implicit before under
Article 21 had been made explicit now under Article 21A. The following are some
judgments which express how important education is for a child.
57) Starting with the history which talks about the importance of education was emphasised in
the 'Neethishatakam' by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.), the translation of which is as
follows:
"Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be
preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and
fame; Education is the teacher of the teacher;
Education is God incarnate;
Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not moneyA man without education is equal to animal."
58) In the later period also in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.57
Emphasized on the importance of education in the following words:
(d)Parts III and IV of the Constitution are supplementary to each other. Unless the 'right
to education' mentioned in Article 41 is made a reality, the fundamental rights in Part III
will remain beyond the reach of the illiterate majority,
(e)Article 21 has been interpreted by this Court to include the right to live with human
dignity and all that goes along with it. "The 'right to education' flows directly from right
to life.' In other words, 'right to education' is concomitant to the fundamental right
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The State is under a constitutional mandate to
provide educational institutions at all levels for the benefit of citizens.
56
57
The appropriate Government may, by notification, make rules, for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
1993 (1) S.C.C. 645.
Page 16

59) The word "life" occurring in Article 21 has received a broad and expansive interpretation.
While we are not referring to all the cases, reference must be made to the decision in Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation58court observed:
"The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 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 the death sentence, except according to procedure established by
law. That is but one aspect of the right to life.
60) In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India59, Bhagwati J. while affirming the proposition
that Article 21 must be construed in the light of the Directive Principles of the State Policy
observed thus:
"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 of 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.
61) It was further held in Unni Krishnans case that,
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha this court held that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21
does take in 'educational facilities". (The relevant portion has been quoted hereinbefore).
Having regard to the fundamental significance of education to the life of an individual
and the nation, and adopting the reasoning and logic adopted in the earlier decisions of
this Court referred to hereinbefore, we hold, agreeing with the statement in Bandhua
Mukti Morcha, that right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life
guaranteed by Article 21. That the right to education has been treated as one of
transcendental importance in the life of an individual has recognised not only in this
country since thousands of years, but all over the world.
62) This is evident from the case of Brown v. Board of Education60, that right of education is also
58
59
[1985] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 51.

[1984] 2 S.C.R. 67.
Page 17

available in foreign countries and in the same case, Earl Warren, CJ., speaking for the U.S.
Supreme Court emphasised the right to education in the following words:
"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and eats........ It is
required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed
forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal instrument
in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training,
and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any
child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an
education."
63) The fact that right to education occurs in as many as three Articles in Part IV viz., Articles
41, 45 and 46 shows the importance attached to it by the founding fathers.61
64) Thus, any other objective comes only after education, then how can the State can be
compelled to follow the hierarchy to first provide nutritious food and then compel the
children to come to school. Moreover, these two are totally different and should be dealt
exclusively. So there cannot be any hierarchy between the providing education and providing
nutritious food.
D. THAT THE INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN DISTRICT Y WAS JUST AN
EXCEPTION
65) The counsel for the state submits that the incident that took place in District Y of State X was
just an exceptional case and exceptional cases should not be generalized. If we generalize
this incident then the consequences would be catastrophic. The whole humanity should not
suffer because of one incident.
66) "It is not uncommon for an arguer to draw a conclusion or generalization based on only a few
instances of a phenomenon. In fact, a generalization is often drawn from a single piece of
supporting data, an act that might be described as committing the fallacy of the lonely fact. . .
67) "Some areas of inquiry have quite sophisticated guidelines for determining the sufficiency of
a sample, such as in voter preference samples or television viewing samples. In many areas,
however, there are no such guidelines to assist us in determining what would be sufficient
60
61
98 Lawyers Ed. 873.

Supra Note 57.
Page 18

grounds for the truth of a particular conclusion.62"
68) As has been pointed earlier also that the state has followed due procedure of law and also it
has ensured by taking food samples that good quality food is given to the children and this is
the best the State could do. An incident occurred at one occasion should not be meant that it
will happen every time. Therefore on the basis of above arguments, the respondent contends
that the parents have jumped to the conclusion on the basis of one isolated incident.
Moreover, the state submits that there could be other grave possibilities and reasons for the
death of children. We cannot assume in law. If the food provided in the school was unhealthy
then there would have been other incidents reported and only 22 children out of the whole
school children who had taken up the meal would not have died keeping other children who
availed the same meal safe.
69) It is also hereby stated that the respondent want to bring to the kind notice of the Supreme
Court that the High Court has accepted our arguments and also the decision of the High
Court was in favor of the state. High court upheld section 10 of the State X Education Rules,
2014 on the ground that the fundamental rights under Article 21A can be implemented
effectively by using such provisions. Further to stop numerous instances of child labour
amongst the weaker section of the society, such strict steps must be taken to discourage the
parents/ guardians from not sending their wards to school. The High Court accepted the State
governments reply that hygienic midday meals were provided in schools and passed no
direction against the government on this issue.
62
T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning,( 4th ed. Wadsworth, 2001).
Page 19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Whereof in the light of facts of the instant case, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it may be pleased to hold, adjudge and
declare:
1. That petition before the Honble Supreme Court of India under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India against the order of the High Court is not maintainable.
2. That the impugned decision of the Honble High Court be upheld.
3. That Section 10 the State X Education rules, 2014 is constitutional.
4. That the state requires no direction in relation to mid day meal.
5. That direction be issued to parents to send the children to school from next working day.
Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of the facts of the case and justice,
equity and good conscience.
Sd/Counsels for the Respondent
Page ix

3rd NHRC - LC-I National Moot Court Competition, 2015 (R)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3rd NHRC - LC-I National Moot Court Competition, 2015 (R)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE: TC-09

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.L.P. NO. .OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WHETHER SECTION 10 OF STATE X EDUCATION RULES, 2014 IS

NUTRITIOUS MIDDAY MEAL BEFOR MAKING IT COMPULSORY TO

PRAYER FOR RELIEF......................................................................................................ix

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

All India Reporter

Indian Law Reporter

Mid Day Meal Scheme

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights

National Human Rights Commission

Supreme Court Cases

Special Leave Petition

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3. The Oxford English Dictionary (11th Ed. 2008).

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THAT THE PRESENT SLP IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

WHETHER THE STATE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NUTRITIOUS

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WHETHER THE SECTION 10 OF STATE X EDUCATION RULES, 2014 IS

WHETEHR THE STATE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NUTRITIOUS

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 65.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Eighty-Sixth Amendment Act, 2002(27th January,2015 10:03 A.M.) available at:

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Corporation of Calcutta v.Liberty cinema, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1107.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NHRC - LC-I NATIOANL MOOT COURT COMPETITION