Roll no – 121
MOOT COURT PRESENTATION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIES
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2021
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIES
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS
AJAY MEHRA ………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC OF INDIES AND ORS ………..RESPONDENT
SUBMISSION BEFOR THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIES
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
6. ARGUMENTS ADVENCED
7. PRAYER
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1) CASES SITED
S.P. Gupta vs Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors 1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530
2) BOOKS
Constitution of INDIA, M.R. Mallick
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) ACT, 1974 Bare Act
The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Bare Act
The Industries (Development and Regulation) ACT, 1951 Bare Act
The Environment (Protection) ACT, 1986 Bare Act
3) LEGAL DATABASES
https://cpcb.nic.in/water-pollution/
https://legislative.gov.in/
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
https://indiankanoon.org/
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
https://www.casemine.com/
4) LEGISLATIONS
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WATER ACT, 1974
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
THE INDUSTRIES ACT, 1951
THE ENVIRONMENT ACT, 1986
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indies has jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indies 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”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Indies is a south Asian country. It has a written Constitution which guarantees
fundamental rights. After Independence, industrialization became one of the
economic policies which lead to the establishment of various states owned public
sector industries and enterprises.
2. Shah Industry in the state of Saushtra is one such industry. It is situated near the banks
of river Baltic. It is an auto manufacturing industry. It uses harsh chemicals and
metals in its production process. The byproduct of this industry contains highly toxic
pollutants such as mercury and lead. These pollutants are dumped in the Baltic river
by Shah Industry.
3. The water of river Baltic is used by villagers residing around its vicinity for various
daily purposes such as cooking, drinking and bathing. Many villagers are suffering
from health related issues due the level of contamination of the Baltic water on
account of the toxic pollutants being dumped in it by Shah Industries.
4. Ajay Mehra is a renowned social activist known for fighting cases against industries
for causing environment pollution on behalf of common people who are affected by
such transgression.
5. Ajay Mehra was concerned about the villagers residing near the Baltic river and the
ecosystem surrounding it. He alerted the State Pollution Control Board and other
concerned government authorities demanding through inquiry and closure of the
industry until the report was given. In spite of this no inquiry nor closure of the
company took place.
6. Aggrieved by this Ajay Mehra filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indies for the issuance of writ of mandamus against the State Pollution Control
Board.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether Ajay Mehra, the Petitioner has locus standi to file PIL in this case.
2. Whether Shah Industries under the plea of industrialization, can violate the
environmental norms of Republic of Indies.
3. Whether Right to health under Article 21 of Constitution of Indies had been
violated by Shah Industries.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether Ajay Mehra, the Petitioner has locus standi to file PIL
Yes. The Petitioner, Ajay Mehra has locus standi to file the said Petition under Article
32 of the republic of Indies to protect the Fundamental Right of the affected villagers
in public interest, as there has been an unsavory infringement of Article 21 of the
Constitution of Indies. On ground of jurisdiction and infringement of right to life, the
superior court can grant mandamus notwithstanding the existence of an alternate
remedy.
2. Whether Shah Industries under the plea of Industrialization, can violate the
environmental norms of Republic of Indies
No. Shah Industries under the plea of Industrialization cannot violate environmental
norms of Republic of Indies under S.31 of Industries (Development and Regulation)
ACT, 1951. i.e. Shah industries cannot violate Article 42A, The Environment Act,
Water Act, etc.
3. Whether Right to health under Article 21 of Constitution of Indies has been
violated by Shah Industries
Yes.
