SHRI I. M.

NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

TC: TM12 (P)

SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2022-23

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA, 1950

IN THE M ATTER OF

MR. MANOHAR LAMBA……………………….……………..PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDICA & ORS………………………..………..RESPONDENTS

[CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. ___ OF 2022]

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 1 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... I

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………….………………..……………………..…..……. II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... III – X
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………..……..…………....……..... XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................XII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .............................................................................................. XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................... XIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED........................................................................................... 1 - 19
ISSUE 1: W HETHER DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY AND MALTA ENTERPRISE IS LIABLE
FOR DAMAGE OCCURRED TO THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM ?...........................................1-5
[A] DELTA SHIPPING C OMPANY AND MALTA E NTERPRISES IS ABSOLUTELY LIABLE FOR
THE ENVIRONMENTAL D AMAGE UNDER THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS……………….….1
[B] DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY IS LIABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ……….3
[C] DELTA SHIPPING CO. & MALTA ENTERPRISES FAILED TO OBSERVE DUE DILIGENCE...3
[D] RS CARRIER WAS U NSEAWORTHY, DEPICTS NEGLIGENCE FROM DELTA SHIPPING CO..4
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE STATE HAS FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTY IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE ECOSYSTEM ?.............................................................5-10
[A] THE ACTION OF STATE IS IN C ONTRARY TO S EVERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURE…..5
[B] STATE HAS DUTY T O PROTECT AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT UNDER ART. 48A……...6
[C] ACTION OF STATE IS IN CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS ………….…....6
ISSUE 3: WHETHER S TATE IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
GUARANTEED UNDER P ART III OF THE CONSTITUTION ?.........................................10-15
[A] THE ACTION OF STATE VIOLATES ARTICLE 21………………………………………..10
[B] ACTION OF STATE D IDN’T PASS THE PRISM OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION …12
[C] ACTION OF STATE IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE……………………………..13
[D] ACTION OF STATE IS IN VIOLATION OF 19(1)(G)……………………………………..14
ISSUE 4: WHETHER ALL RESPONDENTS H AVE JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITIES TO PAY
COMPENSATION FOR R ESTITUTION & RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEM ?.................15-19
[A] THE STATE AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION ……….15
[B] DELTA SHIPPING C OMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF
POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE SINCE IT IS THE OWNER OF THE SHIP R.S. CARRIER…….….16
[C] MALTA ENTERPRISE IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION ………………………….….17
[D] THERE EXISTS A JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITIES ON ALL THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY
COMPENSATION…………………………………………………………………………...19
PRAYER ..................................................................................................................... XV

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER I | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- ALL INDIA REPORTER

ANR. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ANOTHER

ART. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ARTICLE

TN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TAMIL NADU

CJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- CHIEF JUSTICE

COI --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CONS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTITUTION

UP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UTTAR PRADESH

LTD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIMITED

CO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANY

ED. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDITION

F.R. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

HON’BLE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HONOURABLE

MP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MADHYA PRADESH

ORS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHERS

SC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUPREME COURT

SCC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPREME COURT REPORTER

NGT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

§ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION

CIL --------------------------------------------------------------------- CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

UOI ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA

V. / VS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- VERSES

PG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- PAGE NUMBER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER II | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[A.] TABLE OF CASES:

INDIAN CASES
➢ SUPREME COURT
1. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayadu (Retd.), AIR 1999 SC 812……..7, 12
2. Ajoomal Lilaram v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 278……………………………….....14
3. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi, (2013) 10 SCALE 261……….…9
4. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157………………….19
5. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1………………………………13
6. Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal, (1952) SCR 340…………………….…13
7. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325…………………………….....10, 13
8. Bajri Lease Loi Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) SCC OnLine SC
1043………………………………………………………………………………….….19
9. Banari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625………………………………....14
10. Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902………………………..5
11. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1557……………………………………………………………………..….15
12. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1985) 4 SCC 677……………………………………...…16
13. Budhan Choudhary & Ors v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191……………………13
14. CERC v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 1795…………………………………………………..……6
15. Chadha Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar and Ors., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 713…..18
16. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051………………………..…11
17. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613………………………….……6, 11
18. Collector of Customs v Sampathu Chettty, AIR 1963 SC 316……………………….….15
19. Consumer Action Group v. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425……………………………13
20. Corporation of Calcutta v. Calcutta tramways Ltd, AIR 1964 SC 1279……………..….15
21. CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, AIR 2019 SC 521…………………………….…13
22. Dalmatia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104……………….…12
23. DD Joshi v. UOI, (1983) ASC 420………………………………………………………13
24. Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145……………………………….…13
25. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, UT of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746……….…11
26. Govindji v. Deputy Controller, (1969) SCJ 93……………………………………….….15
27. Gramophone Company of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR 1984 SC 667………..7
28. Harminder v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1527…………………………………….....14
29. Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514………………….10

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER III | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

30. Hindustan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. WB Pollution Control Board, Principal Bench, Appeal
No. 10 of 2011……………………………………………………………………….…..18
31. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 5 SCC 281……..….4, 5, 6, 11, 17
32. Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of AP, AIR 2006 SC 1350…………………….…11
33. J.K Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 99……………………11
34. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1540…………………….…13
35. Jietndra Sing v. Ministry of Environmnet and Ors., (2019) SCC Online SC 1510…..…11
36. K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1…………………………………..…13
37. Kamla Neti (Dead) Through Lrs v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1694……………………………………………………………………...…12
38. Kangshari v. State of W.B., (1960) 2 SCR 646……………………………………….…13
39. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569…………………………………..…13
40. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992……………………....14
41. Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404…………………………………13
42. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461………………………..……6
43. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 3 SCC 569…………………………..…10
44. Lal Bahadur v. State of UP and Ors., (2017) SCC Online SC 1558………………..……11
45. M/S Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 2009 SC 904…...14
46. Madhu Kishore v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125…………………………………9, 11
47. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783…………………..…..7
48. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.………………………………10, 14
49. Mardia Chemicals Ltd v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311………………………….…13
50. MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1515………………………...…9, 16, 18
51. MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388……………………………………….….15
52. MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4016………………………………9
53. MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCR 819…………………………………...….1, 4
54. MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 256……………………………………...…11
55. MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715…………………………………..……..7
56. MC Mehta v. UOI, (2002) 3 SCC 527……………………………………………….……6
57. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of MP, (2016) 7 SCC 353……….…13
58. Mohd. Shujat Ali v. UOI, AIR 1974 SC 1631………………………………………...…13
59. Moons Technologies Limited and others v. UOI, (2019) SCC Online SC 624………....14
60. MP High Court Advocates Bar Assn. v. UOI, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 639………….…11
61. MRF Limited v. Inspector Kerala Government AIR 1999 SC 188…………………..….15
62. Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, (1994) SCC 693………………………………………….…4
63. Municipal Corpn of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 897……11
64. N. D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 86……………………………………….….5

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER IV | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

65. Nandini Satpathy v. PL Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025…………………………………….…13

66. Nandini Sundar and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839…………………..10
67. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664………….……6, 11, 12
68. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1…………………………………13
69. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 3313………………………………....14
70. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746…………………………….…10, 16
71. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180……………….…10, 12
72. Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689……………………………………....14
73. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673………………………………......14
74. Parashram Thakur Dass v. Ram Chand, AIR 1982 SC 872…………………………......14
75. Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. UOI, Writ Petition Civil number 375/2012………….….19
76. Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771…………………………………….10, 15
77. Premjit Bhat v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1980 SC 738……………………....14
78. R. Renu Karthick v. Inspector General of Coast Guard, W.P. No. 30676 of 2018………..2
79. Ram Sarup v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 247……………………………………..…13
80. Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141………………………………..……6, 16
81. Sachin Jain v. UOI, (2020) 19 SCC 349…………………………………………………12
82. Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commr. of Police, (1990) 1 SCC 422……..…16
83. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1836………….......14
84. Saujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631……………………………………..…12
85. Saurabh Chandra v UOI, AIR 2004 SC 361…………………………………………..…13
86. Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339……………………………16
87. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155……………….….15
88. Soma Chakravorthy v. CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411………………………………….…13
89. Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP, (1991) 1 SCC 212……………………………………12
90. State of Andhra Pradesh v. State of Maharastra and Other, (2013) 5 SCC 68………..…12
91. State of Bombay v. FN Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 609………………………………………12
92. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 847…...…9, 11
93. State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1560………….…12
94. State of M.P v. Nandlal, AIR 1988 SC 251………………………………………...……13
95. State of TN v. Ananthi Ammal, (1995) 1 SCC 519………………………………………13
96. State of UP v. Renusagar Power Co, (1988) 4 SCC 59……………………………….…13
97. State of Uttaranchal v. B.S. Chaufal & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2550………………….…9, 11
98. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575…………………..…16
99. Style (Dress) v. UT of Chandigarh, (1999) 7 SCC 89……………………………………12
100. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420……………………………….…11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER V | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

101. Sundararajan v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 620……………………………12

102. Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021……………………………10
103. Tarun Sangh, Alwar v. UOI, (1992) SCC 448……………………………………...…11
104. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 674…………………..….1
105. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645…………………….…11
106. UOI and Another v. G Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463……………………………....14
107. V Ramana v. APSRTC and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 338……………………………....14
108. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI, AIR 1996 SC 2715…………...……3, 6, 7, 19
109. Virendar Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577……………………………..…11
110. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011…………………………….……6, 7
➢ HIGH COURTS
1. AP Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. MV Naidu (Civil Appeal No. 368 of 1999) ……12
2. Chandan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine Jhar 1587….…13
3. E.S. Beena v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) SCC OnLine Chh 1454……………………16
4. Jitendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (civil) 5803 of 2007…….....14
5. Kirti Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation, Ahmedabad, AIR 1983 Guj 235……………......14
6. M. Subramanyam Reddy and Others v. State of AP, (2022) SCC OnLine AP 2445….....14
7. Mahendra Lodha v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) SCC OnLine Raj 511………………...…11
8. Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 1 Bom CR 499…………………10
9. MC Mehta v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 Ori 225……………………………………..…11
10. P. Arivazhagan v. Principal Secretary to Govt., (2017) SCC OnLine Mad 33364………16
11. S. K. Garg v. State of UP, AIR 1999 All 41…………………………………………..…12
12. Shaik Rahamatullah v. State of AP, (2022) SCC OnLine AP 2639…………………..…12
13. Shesh Nath Pandey v. Union of India and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine Cal 3221……....14
14. T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171……………11
15. Wayanad Prakrithi Samithi v. State of Kerala, (2021) SCC OnLine Ker 1101…………11
➢ NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (NGT)
1. Arham Education Society v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) SCC OnLine NGT 2246………11
2. In Re: Air Quality Deterioration in and Around Delhi as reported in Print and Electronic
Media, (2019) SCC OnLine NGT 2174…………………………………………………11
3. S.P. Muthuraman, (2015) ALL (I) NGT Reporter (2) (Delhi) 170………………………16
4. Krishan Kant Singh v. National Ganga River Basin Authority, (2014) ALL (I) NGT
Reporter…………………………………………………………………..…………16, 19
5. Indian Express, In re, (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 246……………………………………16
6. 7 Charred to death in fire near Ludhiana dumpsite, (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 249….…16
7. Samir Mehta v. Union of India, (2016) SCC Online NGT 479…………………………..17
8. Human care charitable medical Trust v. UOI, (2016) SCC OnLine NGT 292…………..18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER VI | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

9. TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI and Ors, (2016) SCC OnLine NGT 1196…..….19
10. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Union of India, (2016) SCC Online NGT 4213………...19
11. Heilgers Chem Ltd. v. U.P. Pollution Control Board, (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 278….19
12. Shailesh Singh v. Al-Dua Food Processing (P) Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 252……19
FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS
1. Ryland v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330………………………………………………….1
2. Black v. The Braer Corporation, (1999) SLT 1401…………………………………...…..2
3. Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7……………………...…4
4. French Undergraund Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), 1973 ICJ 457………….…4
5. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), (2006) 45 ILM 1025…………4
6. Steel and Craig v. State Line Steamship Company, (1877) 3 App. Cas. 72 (H.L.) …….…4
7. Papera Traders Ltd. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., (2002) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719………4
8. Kingdom of the Netherland v. Russian Federation, ICGJ 455 (ITLOS) 2013………….…4
9. Southern Bluefin Tuna, New Zealand v. Japan, ICGJ 337 (ITLOS 1999) ………………..7
10. The Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), (2003) 126 ILR 310……………..…..7
11. The case of south pacific regional protocol, Chester Brown, (1998) 17 AMPLJ 109……..8
12. Trial Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 3 RIAA 1905…………………..….8
13. United Kingdom v. Albania, I.C.J. Rep. 1949………………………………………….…9
14. Legality of the Treat or Use of nuclear weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1996……9
15. USA and Ors. v. Walker Lake Working Group, (2018) SCC OnLine US CA 9C 37….…12
16. Fatema Zohora v. Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka, (2019) SCC OnLine Bang SC
(HC) 10……………………………………………………………………………….…12
17. Mohammad Emrul Kayes and Others v. Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh
and Others, (2015) 35 BLD (HCD) 94………………………………………………..…13
18. R v. Secretary of State for Environment ex p Nottinghamshire CC, (1986) AC 240….…13
19. R v. Home Secretary ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696………………………………………13
20. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li, (2013) HCA 18…………………….…13
21. Associated Provincial Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., (1948) 1 KB 223…………....14
22. R (on the application of Begum) & Ors. v. Begum & Ors., (2020) EWCA Civ 918….....14
23. Sharonell Fulton, Et Al v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Et Al, (2021) SCC OnLine
US SC 37……………………………………………………………………………..….15
24. Mirza Abbas v. State and another, (2019) SCC OnLine Bang SC (HC) 6……………….15
25. In re Oil Spill Amoco Cadiz, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16832 29.…………………………..18
[B.] OTHER AUTHORITIES:
1. DEEPA BADRINARAYANA , RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: WHAT WE CAN
DISCERN FROM THE AMERICAN AND INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE, 43
BROOKLYN J OURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, (2017).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER VII | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

2. SHAMNAD BASHEER & PRASHANT R EDDY, “DUCKING” TRIPS IN INDIA: A SAGA

INVOLVING NOVARTIS AND THE LEGALITY OF § 3(D), JSTOR, 131, 142 (2008).
3. MEGARAJAN. V. & DHIVYA. R, INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED
MATHEMATICS, A STUDY ON PRINCIPLE AND DOCTRINE BY SUPREME COURT FOR
PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (2018).
4. BHARAT PARMAR & AYUSH GOYAL, ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: THE RULE OF STRICT
LIABILITY IN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE, MANUPATRA.
5. 2, SHRIMONISHA & R. DHIVYA , ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED
MATHEMATICS, 2018).
6. DAVID W. ABECASSIS, LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OIL POLLUTION FROM
SHIPS, (BUTTERWORTH, LONDON, 1ST ED. 1978).
7. IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 159 (OXFORD:
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2008).
8. DAVID FREESTONE AND ELLEN HEY, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION, 10 (KLUWER LAW
INT’L, 1ST ED. 1996).
9. DAVID A. DANA, A BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMIC DÉFENSE OF PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE, 97 NW. U. L. REV. 1315, (2003).
10. ARJE TROUWBORST, PRECAUTIONARY RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES 31 (2006) AT
56.
11. DONALD ROTHWELL ET, AL., THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF THE SEA,
521 (2016).
12. HARSHITA SINGHAL AND SUJITH KOONAN, “POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE IN INDIA:
ASSESSING CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 7(2) R GNUL
STUDENT RESEARCH REVIEW 41 (2021).
13. Y LOYA & B. RINKEVICH, EFFECTS OF OIL POLLUTION ON CORAL REEF
COMMUNITIES , 3 MARINE ECOLOGY – PROGRESS SERIES 167-180 (1980).
14. CAMERON, J., & ABOUCHAR, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: A FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF LAW AND POLICY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT, BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
REVIEW, (2001) 14.
15. A CRITIQUE OF PROPORTIONALITY AND BALANCING. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
PRESS; JAVIER G ALLEGO, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
VOLUME 18, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2020, PAGES 297-302,
HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1093/ICON/MOAA020, PUBLISHED: 21 MAY 2020.
HTTPS://WWW.MACMILLANDICTIONARY .C OM/DICTIONARY/BRITISH/STATURE
16. JUSTICE AK SIKRI, ‘PROPORTIONALITY AS A TOOL FOR ADVANCING RULE OF LAW’,
(2019) 3 SCC (J) P 3 <HTTPS://WWW.SCCONLINE.COM//> ACCESSED JUNE 17 2020
(PROPORTIONALITY FOR RULE OF LAW ).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER VIII | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

17. MEMBER (WATER RESOURCES) PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS

DIVISION AND WATER RESOURCES DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA’S UTILISATION OF FUNDS AND ASSETS CREATED THROUGH GANGA
ACTION PLAN IN STATES UNDER GAP MAY, 2009.
18. PLANNING COMMISSION ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS DIVISION AND WATER
RESOURCES DIVISION
19. SARKARITEL, PROVIDING SAFE DRINKING WATER AN UN-ESCAPABLE DUTY OF
GOVT, 2021
20. THE BANJOT KAUR, UNHOLY CHASE, DOWN TO EARTH (2018)
21. VOLUME:05, INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH J OURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY (IRJET), ISSUE: 06, JUNE 2018
22. WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT’S, B RUDTLAND
REPORT, 1987.

[C.] STATUTORY COMPILATIONS:

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDICA, 1950.
2. ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION ) ACT, 1986
3. NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010
4. THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) CESS ACT, 1977
5. WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ), 1974
6. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1958
7. COAST GUARD ACT, 1978
8. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908
9. INLAND VESSELS ACT, 1917
10. THE MERCHANT SHIPPING (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR POLLUTION DAMAGE) R ULES, 2008
11. THE MERCHANT SHIPPING (PREVENTION OF P OLLUTION BY OIL FROM SHIPS )
RULES, 2010
12. THE MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR COMPENSATION FOR OIL
POLLUTION DAMAGE ) RULES, 2008
13. OIL INDUSTRY SAFETY DIRECTORATE-STANDARD OISD -GDN-200 (GUIDELINES FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR OIL SPILL R ESPONSE)

[D.] UNIVERSAL COMPILATIONS:

1. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON OIL POLLUTION PREPAREDNESS , RESPONSE AND
CO-OPERATION, 1990
2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO INTERVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS IN
CASES OF OIL POLLUTION CASUALTIES, 1969
3. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CIVIL LIABILITY FOR OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE,
1992
4. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BUNKER OIL P OLLUTION
DAMAGE, 2001
5. HAGUE VISBY RULES, 1968.
6. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 1948.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER IX | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

7. THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, 1953.

[E.] BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES:

1. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GREEN BOOK: POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
RULES AND NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER , 6TH EDITION, 2010
2. DR. S.C. TRIPATHI, ENVIRONMENT LAW, 7TH EDITION-2019
3. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (9TH EDN. 2014,
LEXIS NEXIS)
4. LAL’S ENCYCLOPAEDIA ON ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND POLLUTION LAWS, 6TH
EDITION - 2017
5. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LEXIS NEXIS , 8TH EDN., 2018).
6. P. K. AGARWAL, ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND POLLUTION CONTROL IN THE
GANGA, 1994
7. V.G. RAMACHANDRAN, LAW OF WRITS, 6 TH EDITION -2006
8. VOLUME 1, LAL'S C OMMENTARIES ON WATER & AIR POLLUTION AND
ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION ) LAWS: ALONGWITH ALLIED LAWS, STATE ACTS ,
RULES AND NOTIFICATIONS , 2000
9. K.D. GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE (LEXIS NEXIS, 7 T H EDN., 2020).

[F.] LEXICONS REFERRED:

1. ADVANCED LAW LEXICON, 4TH EDITION.
2. BLACK’S LAW D ICTIONARY, 6TH EDITION.
3. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 8TH EDITION
4. COLLIN’S DICTIONARY , 12TH EDITION.
5. MERIAM WEBSTER ’S DICTIONARY OF LAW, 1ST EDITION.
6. JUSTICE Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, THE LAW LEXICON, 2ND EDITION REPRINT - 2009
7. STROUD’S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES, 7TH EDITION - 2008
8. EARL JOWETT, THE DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH LAW, SECOND IMPRESSION-1965
9. P. RAMANATHA AIYAR AND JUSTICE Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, THE LAW LEXICON, 2ND
EDITION REPRINT- 2009
10. SHORTER OXFORD DICTIONARY, 3RD EDITION
11. SURENDRA MALIK AND SUMEET MALIK, SUPREME COURT WORDS AND PHRASES,
3RD EDITION, 2014

[G.] LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED:

1. WWW .HEINONLINE .COM

2. WWW .JSTOR .COM

3. WWW .LEXISNEXIS .COM

4. WWW .MANUPATRA .COM

5. WWW .SCCONLINE .COM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER X | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of Indica by virtue of Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica has decided
to hear the petition. Article 32 states that:

ARTICLE 32. REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS CONFERRED BY PART III

(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.

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER XI | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND O F THE CASE AND EFFECT OF OIL SPILL:

Indica, ranked as one of 17 mega-diverse countries. On June 10, 2021, a ship ‘R.S.Carrier’,
owned by Delta Shipping Limited voyaging from Indomesa to Dohej carrying more than 57824
metric tons of coal and also containing 1148 tonnes of fuel oil and 35 tonnes of diesel which
was imported by the Milta Group started sailing. The ship started leaking on 12th August 2021
in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Indica due to water ingression in ballast tanks due to
technical faults. Consequently, it led to oil spills over the sea causing environmental damage
to aquatic life and thus causing marine pollution. It was observed that ship had been constantly
spilling oil since last 2- 3 month. Due to oil spill at Naharashtra, there is environmental
pollution, loss of marine lives, fishermen unable to venture out for fishing, 307 marine animals,
including 258 turtles, 43 dolphins, and 6 whales, had been discovered dead throughout western
coastal Zones, and ever since, then reports of dead animals along beaches keep on coming. No
action has been taken, as per National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOS-DCP).

MEASURES TAKEN BY STATE:

Looking at the adverse effect on the environment, the Indica Coastguard authority stepped in
and conducted a survey. The report of the Indica’s Coast Guard Authority includes that R.S.
carrier owned by Delta shipping Limited has caused all damage. Further assessment revealed
that the authority had taken measures to contain the oil spills, however, the ships and their
agents have not yet taken suitable measures to remove the oil from the ocean. Milta enterprises
have taken no action to control the pollution caused by the spillage.

PETITIONS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT :

Looking to the larger interest of the public the petition was filed on 7th July 2022 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica by Mr Manohar Lamba, who questioned the significance of
environmental jurisprudence, in relation to pollution caused by the oil spillage in territorial
waters, contiguous zone and the Exclusive Economic Zone of the city and its impact on
fisheries and tourism and consequences and liabilities arising therefrom. The applicant filled
the case against Naharashtra Maritime Board, and Naharashtra Pollution Control Board
including Delta shipping company and Malta Enterprise to be held liable for damage to marine
ecosystem. They are also liable to pay compensation for restitution and restoration of ecology,
and ecosystem on basis of the 'Polluter Pays Principle and for loss caused to different industries.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER XII | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: WHETHER DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY AND MALTA ENTERPRISE IS

LIABLE FOR DAMAGE OCCURRED TO THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE STATE HAS FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTY IN ORDER
TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE ECOSYSTEM?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE STATE IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION ?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER ALL THE RESPONDENTS HAVE A JOINT AND SEVERAL

LIABILITIES TO PAY THE COMPENSATION FOR THE RESTITUTION AND
RESTORATION OF THE ECOLOGY AND THE ECOSYSTEM?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER XIII | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1.] WHETHER DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY AND MALTA ENTERPRISE IS LIABLE FOR
DAMAGE OCCURRED T O THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM ?
It is humbly submitted that Delta Shipping Company and Malta Enterprise is liable for damage
occurred to the marine ecosystem. To that effect, the Counsel from the side of Petitioner seeks
to establish that; [A] Delta Shipping Company and Malta Enterprises is absolutely liable for
the Environmental Damage under the National Legislations, [B] Delta Shipping Company is
liable under International Conventions as well, [C] Delta Shipping Company and Malta
Enterprises has failed to observe Due Diligence and [D] R.S. Carrier was unseaworthy and
hence Depicts Negligence on the Part of Delta Shipping Company.
[2.] WHETHER THE STATE HAS FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
AND PROTECT THE ECOSYSTEM ?
It is humbly submitted that the state has failed to perform the necessary steps in order to curb
down the environmental degradation. To that the effect, the counsel from the side of Petitioner
seeks to establish that; [A] The action of state is in contrary to several environmental measure
as State action is in contrary to the Water Act, 1974, [B] State has the duty to protect and
improve the environment under Article 48A and [C] The action of state is in contrary to the
International Conventions and Obligations.

[3.] WHETHER THE S TATE IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

GUARANTEED UNDER P ART III OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted that the action of State is in violation of various fundamental Rights. To
that effect, the Petitioner seeks to establish that; [A] The Action of State violates Article 21,
[B] Action of State didn’t pass the prism of Article 14 of the Constitution, [C] Action of State
is arbitrary and unreasonable as and [D] Action of State is in violation of 19(1)(g).
[4.] WHETHER ALL T HE RESPONDENTS HAVE A JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITIES TO
PAY THE COMPENSATION FOR THE RESTITUTION AND RESTORATION OF THE ECOLOGY
AND THE ECOSYSTEM ?
It is humbly submitted that all the Respondents is jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation. To that effect, the Petitioner seeks to establish that; [A] The State and its
Instrumentalities is liable to pay compensation, [B] Delta Shipping Company is liable to pay
compensation on the basis of Polluter Pays Principle since it is the owner of the ship R.S.
Carrier, [C] Malta Enterprise is liable to pay compensation and [D] There exists joint and
several liabilities on all the Respondents to pay compensation.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER XIV | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY AND MALTA ENTERPRISE

IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGE OCCURRED TO THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM?
[¶1] It is contended that Delta Shipping Company and Malta Enterprise is liable for damage
occurred to the marine ecosystem. To that effect, the Counsel from the side of Petitioner seeks
to establish that; [A] Delta Shipping Company and Malta Enterprises is absolutely liable for
the Environmental Damage under the National Legislations, [B] Delta Shipping Company is
liable under International Conventions as well, [C] Delta Shipping Company and Malta
Enterprises has failed to observe Due Diligence and [D] R.S. Carrier was unseaworthy and
hence Depicts Negligence on the Part of Delta Shipping Company.
[A] DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY AND MALTA E NTERPRISES IS ABSOLUTELY LIABLE
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE UNDER THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS
[¶2] Section 52 of the Inland Vessels Act1 states that no oil or oily mixture, hazardous chemical
or obnoxious substance from a mechanically propelled vessel shall be discharged in inland
water. Section 352H(f) of the Merchants Shipping Act2 defines pollution damage as loss or
damage caused outside the ship by contamination resulting from escape or discharge of oil
from the ship, wherever such escape or discharge occurs. According to section 352-I (2)3, the
owner may restrict his liability in any damage caused by the oil spill arising from any
incident(s). It is based on the legal maxim, ‘sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,’ which means
the right to use a person’s property without injuring the property of another and stated that
where any person collects, keeps and uses on his/her land anything that may cause mischief
due to its escape; then it should be kept at such an individual’s own accord.
[¶3] Where such a thing escapes and causes damage, it would be the responsibility of such a
person to be held accountable.4 When applied in terms of environmental issues and matters,
the theories of absolute and strict liability are founded upon polluter pays principle. Principle
of absolute liability was derived by Hon’ble SC in MC Mehta v. UOI5 & Union Carbide
Corporation v. UOI6, wherein courts observed need to extend the limit of liability imposed
against the defendants in certain situations, on the basis of the severity of their consequences.

1
Inland Vessels Act, 2021, § 52, No. 24, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
2
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, § 352H (f), No. 44, Acts of Parliament, 1958 (India).
3
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, § 352I (2), No. 44, Acts of Parliament, 1958 (India).
4
Ryland v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
5
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCR 819.
6
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 674.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 1 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

Accordingly, the principle of absolute liability requires the defendant to make good the losses
or injury incurred by others,7 such that none of the defences provided under the strict liability
rule can come into play.8 Irrespective of whether the defendant has taken reasonable care or
steps to prevent the damage from happening, yet the degree of damage caused is extensively
high and dangerous.9 Hence, no defences can provide a backbone to the defendant from
escaping such liability10 as far as the principle of absolute liability goes.
[¶4] Reverting to statutory principles of law contained in Act of 2010, it has to be noticed that
in terms of Section 17 of Act, it is the principle of ‘No Fault Liability’ that has to be applied.11
Furthermore, Section 2012 mandates that Tribunal while passing order and deciding the matters
has to statutorily apply the Principle of Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle and
Polluter Pays Principle. Once these two provisions are read in conjunction, obvious result is
that Principle of Strict Liability will have to be applied against the Respondents13 and they will
become liable to pay the damages/environmental compensation14 and comply with other
directions, on the basis of the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle.
[¶5] As per Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 15, no person
shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in
accordance with such standards as may be laid down by State Board to enter (whether directly
or indirectly) into any stream/sewer or on land. Whereas damage caused to marine environment
due to spillage of furnace oil has to be assessed and liability is required to be fixed to all
agencies who were involved in said operations resulting in spillage of furnace oil in to marine
waters.16 In Black v. The Braer Corporation,17 it was observed that damage includes physical
as well as psychological conditions like stress, anxiety and depression. Also, Malta Enterprises
being the owner of the consignment cargo, made no efforts to remove the cargo from the sunken
ship or to take preventive steps to ensure that cargo does not cause pollution.18 Coal contains
hazardous substances as even clarified in the Basel Convention. It is undisputed scientific
proposition that coal contains elements of antimony, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.

7
¶ 12, Moot Compromise.
8
Bharat Parmar & Ayush Goyal, Absolute liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective, Manupatra.
9
¶ 11, Moot Compromise.
10
B.M. Gandhi, Law of Torts 345 (Eastern Book Company, 2018).
11
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, § 17, No. 19, Acts of Parliament, 2010 (India).
12
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, § 20, No. 19, Acts of Parliament, 2010 (India).
13
¶ 8, Moot Compromise.
14
¶ 19, Moot Compromise.
15
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, § 24, No. 6, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
16
R. Renu Karthick v. The Inspector General of Coast Guard and Ors., W.P. No. 30676 of 2018.
17
Black v. The Braer Corporation, (1999) SLT 1401.
18
¶ 16, Moot Compromise.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 2 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

[B] DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY IS LIABLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL C ONVENTIONS

[¶6] The primary rule of the Convention makes available that “the owner of a ship at the time
of an incident, or where the incident consists of a series of occurrences, at the time of the first
such occurrence, shall be liable for any pollution damage caused by the ship as a result of the
incident”.19 Generally, the owner of the ship is held responsible for oil pollution damage,
“which has escaped or been discharged from the ship as a result of the incident”. The term
“pollution damage” has been defined as loss or damage caused outside the ship by
contamination resulting from the escape or discharge of oil from the ship, wherever such escape
or discharge may occur.20 The shipowner at the time of an incident shall be liable for pollution
damage caused by any bunker oil on board or originating from the ship.21 “Oil pollution
incident" means an occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin, which results
or may result in a discharge of oil and which poses or may pose a threat to marine environment,
or to coastline or related interests of one or more States, and which requires emergency action
or other immediate response.22 ‘Incident’ means an event involving actual or probable
discharge into sea of a harmful substance, or effluents containing such a substance.23
[C] DELTA SHIPPING C OMPANY AND MALTA E NTERPRISES HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE
DUE DILIGENCE
[¶7] The Respondents ought to have taken cognizance of the accident in pursuance of the clear
dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum’s case24 on the
principle of “polluter pays”. Due diligence is the standard for negligence. Negligence refers to
lack of reasonable foreseeability without the desire of consequences.25 The precautionary
principle essentially requires the state to take an action to control or reduce possible
environmental damage by its activity in spite of there being scientific uncertainty about its
effects.26 Prudence and caution must be implemented in such a situation.27 Invocation of the
precautionary principle requires the risk of harm to be “serious and irreversible”. 28 If this
criterion is fulfilled, precaution is legally required. This principle has been used in more than

19
Article III (1) of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992, as amended
by Article IV (1) of the 1992 Protocol.
20
Article I, International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.
21
Article 3, International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.
22
Article 2, International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1995.
23
Article 2, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
24
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
25
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 159 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
26
David Freestone and Ellen Hey, The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of
Implementation, 10 (Kluwer Law Int’l, 1st ed. 1996).
27
David A. Dana, A Behavioural Economic Défense of Precautionary Principle, 97 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1315, (2003).
28
Arje Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States 31 (2006) at 56.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 3 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

90 international agreements addressing global problems29 including marine pollution30 and

environmental protection.31 It was applied in decisions of national32 & international courts.33
[¶8] To ensure seaworthiness is the obligation of all the persons responsible for the voyage of
the ship. To provide seaworthy ship before beginning of the voyage is an absolute obligation
of the carrier, and could not be discarded by show of due diligence. The implied warranty was
stated in Steel v. State Line Steamship Company34 by Lord Blackburn as an obligation “not
merely that they should do their best to make the ship fit, but the ship should really be fit. The
Principle of No-Fault Liability by its very virtue places the onus upon the Respondents to prove
that they had adhered to the Doctrine of Due Diligence, and had carried out the essence of the
Precautionary Principle and that the accident occurred despite all reasonable care and caution
and efforts on their part. Furthermore, these Respondents did not adhere to the principle of due
diligence pre-voyage, which can be seen from the fact that there was technical error.35
[D] R.S. CARRIER WAS UNSEAWORTHY AND H ENCE DEPICTS NEGLIGENCE ON THE
PART OF DELTA SHIPPING COMPANY
[¶9] To ensure seaworthiness is obligation of all persons responsible for voyage of ship. The
implied warranty was stated in Steel v. State Line Steamship Company36 by Lord Blackburn as
an obligation “not merely that they should do their best to make the ship fit, but the ship should
really be fit”. Normally, seaworthiness is divided into three components; i) physical condition
of the ship and its equipment, ii) the competence and efficiency of the crew and master and iii)
adequacy of stores and documentation.37 Deterioration results from impossibility to carry out
scheduled maintenance of its system, which compromises vessel’s safety and seaworthiness.
This may, amongst others, create a risk for environment, including release of bunker oil.38 This
is really a case where doctrine of res ipsa loquitor comes completely into play and events speak
for themselves to extent that it hardly requires any further evidence to establish the element of
negligence,39 carelessness and ill-design for sinking of the ship with the cargo itself.

29
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992; Vienna Convention on Protection of Ozone Layer, 1988.
30
Article 3, UNCED Text, Protection of Ocean, Convention on Protection of Marine Environment of Baltic, 1994.
31
UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; Principle 5 of United Nations Conference on Environment &
Development at Rio De Janeiro, 1992.
32
Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, (1994) SC 693; Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 3 SCC 212
33
Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7; French Undergraund Nuclear Tests (New
Zealand v. France), 1973 ICJ 457; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), (2006) 45 ILM 1025.
34
Steel and Craig v. State Line Steamship Company, (1877) 3 App. Cas. 72 (H.L.).
35
¶ 8, Moot Compromise.
36
Ibid; See also, MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
37
Papera Traders Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd., (2002) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719
38
Kingdom of the Netherland v. Russian Federation, ICGJ 455 (ITLOS) 2013.
39
¶ 16, Moot Compromise.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 4 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

DELTA SHIPPING C OMPANY AND MALTA ENTERPRISE IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGE

OCCURRED T O THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM .

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE STATE HAS FAILED TO PERFORM IT’S DUTY IN

ORDER TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE ECOSYSTEM?
[¶10] It is humbly contended before this court that the state has failed to perform the necessary
steps in order to curb down the environmental degradation. To that the effect, the counsel from
the side of Petitioner seeks to establish that; [A] The action of state is in contrary to several
environmental measure as [A.1] State has failed to observe the precautionary principle and due
diligence and [A.2] State action is in contrary to the Water Act, 1974, [B] State has the duty to
protect and improve the environment under Article 48A and [C] The action of state is in
contrary to the International Conventions and Obligations.
[A] ACTION OF STATE IS IN CONTRARY T O SEVERAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
[¶11] Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is a parent legislation enacted by the Parliament for
protection and improvement of environment. The power conferred under an environmental
statute may be exercised only to advance environmental protection and not for a purpose that
would defeat the object of the law.40 A power conferred by the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 having regard to its object cannot be treated as power simplicities, but is a power coupled
with duty & is duty of State to make sure that conditions under Act are fulfilled.41Enforcement
agencies are under an obligation to strictly enforce environmental laws.42 Oil pollution should
be considered not only with a view toward short-term but also chronic effects.43
[A.1] STATE HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE & DUE DILIGENCE
[¶12] Precautionary principle states that any harm which can be reasonably foreseeable is to
be prevented immediately.44 Its elements comprise,45 [a] Anticipatory Action, [b] Conveying
the probable environmental impact of the harm to the community [c] Alternate planning [d]
Cost-benefit analysis [e] Transparent, participatory, and informed decisions. Moreover, the
Supreme Court laid down that in view of the Constitutional provisions contained in Articles
21, 47, 48-A, 51-A (g) and other relevant statutory provisions contained in the Water Act, Air

40
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902.
41
N. D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 86.
42
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281.
43
Y Loya & B. Rinkevich, Effects of Oil Pollution on Coral Reef Communities, 3 Marine Ecology – Progress
Series 167-180 (1980).
44
Cameron, J., & Abouchar, The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the
Protection of the Global Environment, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, (2001) 14.
45
City of San Franciso, Precautionary Principle Ordinance, § 101, August 2003.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 5 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

Act, Environment (Protection) Act impliedly includes the precautionary principle and the
polluter pay principle.46 The polluter pays principle47 imposes absolute liability for harm
caused to the environment, to compensate the victims of pollution and to pay the cost of
restoring the environment.48 The burden of maintaining the said balance lies on the unit which
has caused the pollution.49 The government must pay damages for the harm caused to the
environment as well as to people since it is their fundamental right to be compensated.50
Whereas, due diligence is the standard basis for environmental protection and expounded in
widely supported ILC Draft Articles.51 In fact, obligation to observe due diligence in preventing
pollution is absolute, and for the breach, states are liable irrespective of any fault.
[A.2] STATE ACTION I S IN CONTRARY T O THE WATER ACT, 1974
[¶13] Provisions of Act state State Pollution Control Board constituted to carry out functions
prescribed under Sec 17 of the Act which among other things provide that the Board to collect
and disseminate information relating to water pollution and prevention, control or abatement
thereof52 and to encourage, conduct and participate investigations and research relating to
problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pollution.53
[B] STATE HAS DUTY TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT UNDER ARTICLE 48A
[¶14] Article 48A obligates State to endeavour to protect environment & to safeguard forests
and wildlife of country. Court54 stated that Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A cast a duty on the State
to secure health of people, improve public health and environment. It is duty of State to use the
best practicable means to prevent any adverse effects that might arise from activities under its
jurisdiction.55 BPM, referred as developments in technique & mechanism to control, reduce or
eliminate pollution or by taking account of variations in capacity of State to address pollution.56
[C] ACTION OF STATE IS IN CONTRARY T O INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
[¶15] The Indian Constitution urges the State to honour its international law and treaty
obligations,57 which are understood as creating ‘legitimate expectations’ of their observance.58

46
Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
47
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613.
48
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 3 SCC 212; MC Mehta v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
49
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.
50
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086: (1983) 4 SCC 141; CERC v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 1795.
51
I.L.C Draft Articles on Transboundary Harm at 392.
52
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, § 17(c), No. 6, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
53
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, § 17(d), No. 6, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
54
M.C. Mehta v. UOI, (2002) 3 SCC 527.
55
Article 5 of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CPUCH).
56
Donald Rothwell et, al., The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, 521 (2016).
57
Article 51(c), COI; His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
58
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 6 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

The Supreme Court has regularly imported international norms where there is a gap in domestic
law.59 The ‘doctrine of incorporation’ has been implemented in the Indian legal system,
according to which rules of international law become part of domestic law.60 The customary
international law doctrines of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘precautionary principle’ have
been read into the Constitution of Indica.61 In MC Mehta v. Union of India,62 the Supreme
Court placed a positive Constitutional burden on State to prevent environmental degradation.
[¶16] In Southern Bluefin Tuna case63 the tribunal observed that the conservation of the living
resources of the sea is an element in the protection and preservation of marine environment.
The duty to cooperate64 is a fundamental principle in the prevention of pollution of the marine
environment and general international law.65 Since, Indica has asserted its rights to claim a
maritime zone and the right to exploit and explore natural resources therein, which is essentially
a right circumscribed by the provisions UNCLOS.66 Furthermore, though the concept of the
EEZ may be deemed to have become part of customary international law, in view of its almost
universal acceptance, the details of rights and obligations in it can only be invoked within 1982
Convention.67 UNCLOS68 casts obligation upon States to protect, preserve marine environment
by employing ‘best practicable means at their disposal in accordance with their capabilities’.
[C.1] STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOSDCP
[¶17] The environmental impact of an oil spill can be minimized by good management and
planning, and by the response actions put into effect by the Combat Agency. Such action
largely depends on several factor - the type of oils involved; the size of the spill; the location
of the spill; the prevailing sea and weather conditions at the spill site; and the environmental
sensitivity of the coastline/site impacted.69 Under the NOSDCP, oil pollution preparedness and
response requirements are categorized into three tiers. The tiered approach to oil contingency
planning identifies resources for responding to spills of increasing magnitude and complexity

59
Shamnad Basheer & Prashant Reddy, “Ducking” Trips in India: A saga involving Novaratis and the legality of
Section 3(D), 20 National Law School of India Review 131, 142 (2008).
60
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011; Gramophone Company of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey,
AIR 1984 SC 667; Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783.
61
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2715; A.P. Pollution Control Board
v. Prof. M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 812.
62
MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715.
63
Southern Bluefin Tuna, New Zealand v. Japan, ICGJ 337 (ITLOS 1999); Provisional Measures, Order of 27
August 1999, ITLOS Reports 2000, p. 3.
64
Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
65
The Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), (2003) 126 ILR 310.
66
Part V, Art. 55-75 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
67
Peter Bautista Payoyo, Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of Seas, (UN University Press, 1994).
68
Art. 192, 193, 194 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
69
Rule 4.2 of National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan, 2015.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 7 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

by extending the geographic area over which the response is coordinated. It provides a
convenient categorization of response levels and a practical basis for planning. In the instant
case the situation falls under tier-II were the response to a spill that requires the co-ordination
of more than one source of equipment and personnel as well as the resources of the Combat
Agency will need to be supplemented by other local, regional, and national resources. 70 Here
in the instant case no such compliance were taken.71
[C.2] STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF MARPOL
[¶18] It is imperative to note that the application of MARPOL72 to oil platform is limited by
Article 2(3) (b) which states that the definition of ‘discharge’ under MARPOL does not
include: (i) dumping within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter; or (ii) release of harmful substances
directly arising from exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing of seabed
mineral resources.” The application of MARPOL is confined to non-operational discharges,
i.e., those not associated with the exploration, exploitation, and associated offshore processing
of seabed minerals.73 In Casu, in the instant case oil spill was due to technical fault in the ship,74
and not due to any such activity mentioned in Article 2 (3)(b) making them liable.
[¶19] The object and purpose of MARPOL75 is to achieve the complete elimination of
intentional pollution of the marine environment by oil and other harmful substances and the
minimization of accidental discharge of such substances, this can be achieved by establishing
rules not limited to oil pollution having a universal purport. It also aims to preserve the human
environment in general and the marine environment in particular. A deliberate, negligent or
accidental release of oil and other harmful substances from ships constitutes a serious source
of pollution.76 Moreover, States are bound to prevent the pollution of the marine environment
by the discharge of harmful substances or effluents containing hazardous substances.77 Indica
breached its obligation to prevent the pollution of the marine environment. A State is obligated
under CIL to set up domestic controls to prevent environmental damage.78

70
Rule 4.3.2 of National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan, 2015.
71
¶ 10, Moot Compromise.
72
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of
1978 relating thereto (MARPOL).
73
The case of south pacific regional protocol, Chester Brown, (1998) 17 AMPLJ 109.
74
¶ 10, Moot Compromise.
75
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ship (MARPOL), 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978, (2 Oct. 1983) entered into force 1 Jan. 1997.
76
Preamble of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
77
Article 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
78
Trial Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 3 RIAA 1905.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 8 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

[C.3] STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH I TS OBLIGATION UNDER OPRC & CBD
[¶19] The parties should jointly respond to an oil pollution incident79 which involves sharing
of information, joint action and cooperation between States in mitigating oil pollution80
incidents.81 Nothing in convention prejudice the rights of a party to recover cost from third
party while dealing with pollution or threats of pollution.82 Indica has blatantly disregarded
the recognised principles of sustainable development and general principles of international
law as embodied under the CBD as it makes it obligatory for the contracting parties to identify
and monitor those categories of activities which have or is likely to have ‘significant adverse
impact’ on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.83
[C.4] STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH E NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
[¶20] UNCLOS states that it is an obligation to carry out environmental impact assessment and
monitoring, to maintain contingency plans against marine pollution, and to notify other States
of imminent danger.84 In Corfu Channel case85the I.C.J. stated that, Principle of prevention is
a customary rule which has its origin in the due diligence that is required of a State in its
territory. It is ‘every States obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts
contrary to the rights of other States.’ It is an obligation upon the State to protect and preserve
the aquatic environment with carrying out an environmental impact assessment.86
[¶21] In Legality of the threat or Use of nuclear weapons, Advisory Opinion87the court stated
that it is an obligation of a State to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities
which take place under its jurisdiction that causes significant damage to the environment of
another State. An Environment Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as EIA) is
conducted in order to anticipate the likely consequences of the incident.88 Non-performance of
EIA violates right to have a good quality of life89 and any disturbance in the environmental
elements is detrimental to this right.90

79
Article 1(1) of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-Operation, 1990.
80
¶ 10, Moot Compromise.
81
Article 5(c)(ii) of International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-Operation, 1990.
82
Annex, Para. 1, of the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by
Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2007.
83
Art 7(c) and Art 10 of the United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992.
84
Art. 198, 199, 204 and 206 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
85
(United Kingdom v. Albania), I.C.J. Rep. 1949.
86
Martin Dixon Et. Al., Cases & Materials on International Law 463 (6 TH EDN. 2011).
87
Legality of the Treat or Use of nuclear weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1996.
88
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4016; Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Anuj
Joshi and Ors., (2013) 10 SCALE 261.
89
Madhu Kishore v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125; State of Uttaranchal v. B.S. Chaufal & Ors., AIR 2010 SC
2550; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 847.
90
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2000 SC 1997.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 9 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

HENCE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED TO PERFORM ITS
DUTY IN ORDER T O MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE ECOSYSTEM .

ISSUE 3: WHETHER STATE IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION?
[¶22] It is humbly submitted that the action of State is in violation of various fundamental
Rights. To that effect, the Petitioner seeks to establish that; [A] The Action of State violates
Article 21 as [A.1] Right to Healthy Environment is the facet of Article 21, [A.2] Article 21
extends to the Right to Basic Necessities, [A.3] Article 21 extends to the Right to Water and
[A.4] Right to Livelihood is the part of Article 21 as [A.4.1] The Action of State fails to pass
the “Reasonable Person’s Test”, [B] Action of State didn’t pass the prism of Article 14 of the
Constitution as [B.1] It is not in consonance with Doctrine of Proportionality, [C] Action of
State is arbitrary and unreasonable as [C.1] It didn’t pass Wednesbury test and [C.2] It is not
based on Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and [D] Action of State is in violation of 19(1)(g).
[A] THE ACTION O F STATE VIOLATES ARTICLE 21
[¶23] It is worthy of note that Article 21 may not be deprived but by procedure established by
law;91 and such action may not be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.92 Though Article 21
is couched in negative phraseology,93 it enforces positive obligations94 on the state to take steps
to ensure that the individual enjoys a dignified life.95 Further in order to establish violation of
Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of
reasonableness under Article 19.96 Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because it negates
equality97 and permeates the entire fabric of Rule of Law.98 Therefore, every action of the State
must be guided by reason for public good and not by whim, caprice, and abuse of power.99 Post
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,100 the Supreme Court expanded the phrase “personal liberty”
in its interpretation of Article 21 to the widest amplitude.101 It is the bulwark against the
infringement of the fundamental rights by the state instrumentalities.102 In the case of Indian

91
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
92
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
93
Nandini Sundar and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839.
94
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 1 Bom CR 499.
95
Alan Gewirth, Are all Rights Positive? 30 JSTOR, 321 (2001).
96
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.
97
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
98
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
99
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514.
100
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
101
Pathumma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 771.
102
Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Laita Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 10 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India,103 this Hon’ble Court issued direction for
enforcement and implementation of the laws to protect Fundamental Right of life of people.
[A.1] RIGHT TO HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT IS T HE FACET OF ARTICLE 21
[¶24] The Supreme Court, in a number of instances, has recognized the right to a healthy
environment as part of the right articulated under Article 21.104 Every person enjoys the right
to a wholesome environment,105 which is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article
21.106 The environmental issues must and should receive the highest attention from this
court.107 Fundamental Rights are but means to achieve the goal indicated in Part IV and thus
must be construed in the light of Directive Principles.108 Apart from Article 21 of the
Constitution, article 48-A, 51-A(g) highlights the national consensus on the importance of
environmental protection and improvement and lay a foundation for a jurisprudence of
environment protection.109 Article 21 includes right to have a good quality of life110 and any
disturbance in the environmental elements is detrimental to this right.111
[A.2] ARTICLE 21 EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT TO BASIC NECESSITIES
[¶25] The SC has read Right to Basic Necessities112 into the Right to Life and Liberty under
Article 21. This right inherently ensures a dignified life to citizens of Indica,113 which not only
entails an assurance of fulfilling their primary needs,114 but also guarantees all those conditions
to citizens which make life worth living. Article 21 has been given a qualitative concept to
Life,115 and it safeguards the basic human rights required of every civilization.116

103
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281.
104
MP High Court Advocates Bar Assn. v. UOI, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 639; Arham Education Society v. State
of Rajasthan, (2021) SCC OnLine NGT 2246; Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala, (2021)
SCC OnLine Ker 1101; T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171; Indian Council
for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 5 SCC 281; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI, (2000) 10 SCC 664; See
also, 1 Justice T. S. Doabia, Environmental & Pollution Laws in India 6 (Wadhwa Nagpur, 1 st ed. 2005).
105
Jietndra Sing v. Ministry of Environmnet and Ors., (2019) SCC Online SC 1510; Mahendra Lodha v. State of
Rajasthan, (2000) SCC OnLine Raj 511; In Re: Air Quality Deterioration in and Around Delhi as reported in Print
and Electronic Media, (2019) SCC OnLine NGT 2174; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha
and Others, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 897; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480.
106
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420; MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 256; Virendar
Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577.
107
Tarun Sangh, Alwar v. UOI, (1992) SCC 448; Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of AP, AIR 2006 SC 1350.
108
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645.
109
M.C. Mehta v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 Ori 225.
110
Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2017) SCC Online SC 1558; Madhu Kishore v. State of
Bihar, 1996 5 SCC 125; State of Uttaranchal v. B.S. Chaufal & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2550.
111
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 847.
112
J.K Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2015) 12 SCC 99.
113
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746.
114
Rose Mary, Right to Water: Theoretical Concerns and Practical Issues, 67 JSTOR, 759-766 (2006).
115
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.
116
1 JUSTICE FAZIL KARIM, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION 588-589 (Pakistan Law House,
2018).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 11 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

[A.3] A RTICLE 21 EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT TO WATER

[¶26] The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the Right to Water117 within the Right to
Life and Liberty.118 This right has been read into Article 21 as an absolute right and the in
keeping with the Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 47,119 reminded the State of
its duty to provide for the same to its citizens.120 In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
and Others,121 the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Right to Water as a fundamental right.
[A.4] RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD IS T HE PART OF ARTICLE 21
[¶27] Right to livelihood has been read into the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.122 It
has been observed that in interpreting ‘life’ in the strict sense without including livelihood
would render the right meaningless since nobody could live without means of livelihood.123
[A.4.1] T HE ACTION O F STATE FAILS TO PASS THE “REASONABLE PERSON ’S TEST”
[¶28] In cases where the opportunity cost of saving the environment is stifling development,
the judges have taken into account interest of larger group.124 This was upheld in Sundararajan
v. Union of India & Ors.,125 individual interest or, smaller public interest must yield to larger
public interest and inconvenience of some shall be bypassed for larger interest of society.
[B] ACTION OF STATE DIDN’T PASS THE PRISM OF ARTICLE 14 OF C ONSTITUTION
[¶29] Article 14 is read as a positive obligation on the state to confer equal measures that
benefit all citizens, including the right of all citizens in a political democracy to enjoy social
and economic justice.126 After 1974, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in a number of cases that
there was an over- emphasis on the doctrine of classification.127 Reasonable and non-arbitrary
exercise of power is an essential requirement of Article 14.128
[¶30] The principle of equal protection does not take away from the state the power of
classifying persons for the legitimate purpose.129 But the doctrine of Reasonable Classification

117
Sachin Jain v. UOI, (2020) 19 SCC 349; Shaik Rahamatullah v. State of AP, (2022) SCC OnLine AP 2639;
USA and Ors. v. Walker Lake Working Group and Ors., (2018) SCC OnLine US CA 9C 37; State of Andhra
Pradesh v. State of Maharastra and Other, (2013) 5 SCC 68; S. K. Garg v. State of UP, AIR 1999 All 41.
118
State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1560.
119
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 368-373 of 1999).
120
Vrinda Narain, Water as a Fundamental Right: A Perspective from India, Vermont Law Review, 917 (2009).
121
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3751.
122
Kamla Neti (Dead) Through Lrs v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1694;
Fatema Zohora v. Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and Others, (2019) SCC OnLine Bang SC (HC) 10.
123
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 180.
124
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Others, AIR 1999 SC 812.
125
Sundararajan v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 620.
126
Dalmatia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104.
127
Saujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631.
128
Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP, (1991) 1 SCC 212; Style (Dress) v. UT of Chandigarh, (1999) 7 SCC 89.
129
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 609.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 12 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

must not be over emphasized as it is only a subsidiary rule involved to give practical content
to the doctrine of Equality and therefore the doctrine of equality should remain superior to
doctrine of classification.130 As per law, the classification should be based upon two things131
firstly, it should be based upon the Intelligible Differentia132 and secondly, the Intelligible
Differentia should have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved133. The discretion
that is entrusted to the state must be exercised reasonably, and its relevance to the furtherance
of public policy, or public good must be firmly established.134 If executive decision is violative
of fundamental rights, oversteps any constitutional provision or bar, then it is vitiated135.
[B.1] IT IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY
[¶31] Proportionality involves balancing test & necessity test.136 In CPIO v. Subhash Chandra
Aggarwal137, meaning of proportionality was explained as it is crucial for standard to be applied
to ensure that neither right is restricted to a greater extent than necessary to fulfil legitimate
interest of countervailing interest in question. ‘Irrational’ most naturally means ‘devoid of
reasons’ whereas ‘unreasonable’ means ‘devoid of satisfactory reasons.138
[C] THE ACTION O F STATE IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE
[¶32] Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness139 in State action and ensures equality of treatment.
Classification must be scientific, and rest upon real and substantial distinction140 between those
covered and those left out.141 Every rational decision needn’t be reasonable, may unreasonable
because unreasonable means devoid of satisfactory reasons142. If there is arbitrariness or
unreasonableness in state action court strike down such action or statute.143

130
Mohd. Shujat Ali v. UOI, AIR 1974 SC 1631.
131
Kangshari v. State of W.B., (1960) 2 SCR 646; Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404; Ram
Sarup v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 247.
132
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1540; Budhan Choudhary & Ors v. The State of
Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; Chandan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary and Others, (2022)
SCC OnLine Jhar 1587; Mohammad Emrul Kayes and Others v. Government of the People's Republic of
Bangladesh and Others, (2015) 35 BLD (HCD) 94; Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
133
Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal, (1952) SCR 340; DD Joshi v. UOI, (1983) ASC 420.
134
Consumer Action Group v. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425.
135
State of M.P v. Nandlal, AIR 1988 SC 251; Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145.
136
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of MP & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353; K S Puttaswamy v. Union
of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1; Saurabh Chandra v UOI, AIR 2004 SC 361.
137
CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, AIR 2019 SC 521; Nandini Satpathy v. PL Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025.
138
R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Nottinghamshire CC, (1986) AC 240 at 249; R v. Home
Secretary ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. Li, (2013) HCA 18.
139
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336; Soma Chakravorthy v. CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411.
140
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1.
141
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
142
¶ 12, Moot Compromise; See also, R v. Home Secretary ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696; Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship v. Li, (2013) HCA 18.
143
State of UP v. Renusagar Power Co, (1988) 4 SCC 59; State of TN v. Ananthi Ammal, (1995) 1 SCC 519;
Mardia Chemicals Ltd v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 13 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

[C.1] IT DIDN’T PASS T HE WEDNESBURY TEST

[¶33] Article 14144 is not confined to the law enacted by the legislature but includes any order
or notification145. In the case of Associated Provincial Pictures houses ltd v. Wednesbury
Corp.,146it was clearly stated that to judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory
discretion, normally Wednesbury test is to be applied.147 Court would also consider whether
decision was absurd or perverse.148 Since Maneka Gandhi’s case,149 the Courts have adopted
the Wednesbury principle150 that if the classification was an arbitrary act of the state under
Article 12 of the Constitution, Article 14 would strike it down.151 The test for arbitrariness is
whether the executive acted illegally or omitted reasonable factors or its opinion was one which
no reasonable man would have taken.152 Arbitrariness is primarily an action performed by the
executive capriciously without adequately determining principle and classifying based on
unfounded nature of things.153 Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows
that an act not informed by reason is per se arbitrary.154
[C.2] IT IS NOT BASED ON DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
[¶34] Doctrine is based on right and grounded in rule of law155 principle of non- arbitrariness.156
It is well settled that it is expectation of benefit and while dispensing its largess state should
act in conformity with standards and norms.157 Principle that state cannot act in an arbitrary or
discriminatory manner in matter of conferring or not conferring benefits on individuals & that
distribution of largess should be reasonable has been applied in a large number of cases.158
[D] THE ACTION O F STATE IS IN VIOLATION O F 19(1)(G)

144
Moons Technologies Limited and others v. Union of India and other, (2019) SCC Online SC 624.
145
M. Subramanyam Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, (2022) SCC
OnLine AP 2445; R (on the application of Begum) and other v. Begum and other, (2020) EWCA Civ 918.
146
Shesh Nath Pandey v. Union of India and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine Cal 3221; Associated Provincial Pictures
Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., (1948) 1 KB 223; UOI and Another v. G Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463.
147
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., (1948) 1 KB 223; Satwant Singh Sawhney
v. D Ramarathnam and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1836; V Ramana v. APSRTC and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 338.
148
Union of India and another v. G Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463.
149
Maneka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
150
Associated Provincial Picture v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223.
151
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992.
152
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
153
J.K. Mittal, Right to Equality and the Indian Supreme Court, 14 JSTOR, 426- 428 1965.
154
Banari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625; Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673;
Harminder v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1527.
155
Jitendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (civil) 5803 of 2007.
156
M/S Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 904.
157
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 3313.
158
Kasturi Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992; Parashram Thakur Dass v. Ram Chand, AIR
1982 SC 872; Premjit Bhat v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1980 SC 738; Ajoomal Lilaram v. Union of
India, AIR 1983 SC 278; Kirti Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation, Ahmedabad, AIR 1983 Guj 235.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 14 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

[¶35] The object of using four analogues and overlapping words in Article 19 (1) (g) is to make
the guaranteed right as comprehensive as possible to include all the avenues and modes through
which a man may earn his livelihood.159 Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature so as to go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general public. 160 The phrase
‘reasonable restriction’ connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the
right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest
of the public.161 The reasonableness of restraint would have to judge by magnitude of evil it
seeks to restrain, curb or eliminate.162 Any uncontrolled, arbitrary administrative discretion to
restrict a citizen’ right in respect of trade, business, industry cannot be permitted as it would be
imposing an unreasonable restriction outside the scope of clause (6) of Article 19.163

HENCE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT THAT STATE IS

LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE, 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE INDICAN CONSTITUTION.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER ALL THE RESPONDENTS HAVE A JOINT AND SEVERAL

LIABILITIES TO PAY THE COMPENSATION FOR THE RESTITUTION AND
RESTORATION OF THE ECOLOGY AND THE ECOSYSTEM?
[¶36] It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that all the Respondents is jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation. To that effect, the Petitioner seeks to establish that; [A]
The State and its Instrumentalities is liable to pay compensation, [B] Delta Shipping Company
is liable to pay compensation on the basis of Polluter Pays Principle since it is the owner of the
ship R.S. Carrier, [C] Malta Enterprise is liable to pay compensation and [D] There exists joint
and several liabilities on all the Respondents to pay compensation.
[A] THE STATE AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION
[¶37] Article-235 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that the
States are responsible for the fulfilment of their international obligations concerning the
protection and preservation of the marine environment. The provisions under Section 15, 17,
20 of the NGT Act of 2010 are very unambiguous and clearly demonstrate the legislative intent
for providing of compensation expeditiously and effectively. In MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath,164

159
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155.
160
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1557; Sharonell
Fulton, Et Al v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Et Al, (2021) SCC OnLine US SC 37; Mirza Abbas v. State
and another, (2019) SCC OnLine Bang SC (HC) 6; Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771.
161
MRF Limited v. Inspector Kerala Government AIR 1999 SC 188.
162
Collector of Customs v Sampathu Chettty, AIR 1963 SC 316; Govindji v. Deputy Controller, (1969) SCJ 93.
163
Corporation of Calcutta v. Calcutta tramways Ltd, AIR 1964 SC 1279.
164
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 15 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

the Supreme Court held that restoration of the damaged environment is a part of the process of
“sustainable development” and as such polluter is liable to pay cost to the individual sufferers
as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. In instant case, due to the inaction of state
immediately after incident, several fundamental rights of Individuals have been infringed.165
[¶38] In Indian Express, In re,166 the NGT held that due to state failure and liability of
Corporation under Public Trust Doctrine and Polluter Pays Principle, both the State and
Corporation is liable to pay compensation for the ‘Environmental harm’.167 The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in several cases168 held that the right to compensation is some palliative for the
unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and Courts can grant
compensation for deprivation of a fundamental right. This Court has judicially evolved a right
to compensation in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or
life.169 In Casu, in the instant case, due to Preventive orders and notification, the industry has
suffered loss of Rupees 50-60 Crores,170 hence state is liable for compensation.
[B] DELTA SHIPPING C OMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION O N THE BASIS OF
POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE SINCE IT IS THE OWNER OF THE SHIP R.S. CARRIER
[¶39] Article-3 of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution talks
about the liability of the ship owner. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sterlite
Industries India Ltd. v. Union of India171 had held that where the industry had violated the
provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and had operated
without obtaining consent, it was liable to pay damages of Rs. 100 crores for the default period.
This judgment has been followed by Supreme Court and Tribunal in a large number of cases.172
In view of the provisions of Section 15 and Section 17(1) of the NGT Act of 2010, the ‘person
responsible’ for causing adverse impact on the environment is liable to pay compensation. In
Shyam Sel Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 12097, the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court imposed the compensation on the basis of “Polluter Pays”
principle. Two conventions, namely, the International Convention of Civil Liability for Oil

165
¶ 15, Moot Compromise.
166
Indian Express, In re, (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 246.
167
7 Charred to death in fire near Ludhiana dumpsite, (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 249.
168
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; P.
Arivazhagan v. Principal Secretary to Govt., (2017) SCC OnLine Mad 33364; E.S. Beena v. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2022) SCC OnLine Chh 1454.
169
Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1985) 4 SCC
677; Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commr. of Police, (1990) 1 SCC 422.
170
¶ 12, Moot Compromise.
171
Sterlite Industries India Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575.
172
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1515; S.P. Muthuraman, (2015) ALL (I) NGT Reporter (2)
(Delhi) 170; Krishan Kant Singh v. National Ganga River Basin Authority, (2014) ALL (I) NGT Reporter.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 16 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

Pollution Damage, 1969 (‘1969 CLC’) and the International Convention on the Establishment
of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971 (‘1971 Fund Convention’) provide
for a comprehensive two-tier system of compensation for those who suffered loss as a result of
oil spills within the jurisdictions of member-states.
[¶40] The primary rule of the Convention makes available that “the owner of a ship at the time
of an incident, or where the incident consists of a series of occurrences, at the time of the first
such occurrence, shall be liable for any pollution damage caused by the ship as a result of the
incident”.173 Consequently the ship owner is strictly liable for oil pollution damage. Such
liability covers issues such as the costs of clean up, loss to fishermen, and measures taken to
prevent or minimize the damage. The Scotland Court in Black v. The Braer Corporation
observed that damage includes physical injuries and psychological conditions such as stress,
anxiety and depression. The Convention applies exclusively to pollution damage in the
territory, the territorial sea and in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of a state-party to the
convention.174 The CLC establishes the liability of the owner of a ship for pollution damage
caused by oil escaping from the ship as a result of an incident on the territory of a state-party
(including its territorial sea), and covers preventive measures to minimize such damage.175
[¶41] In Samir Mehta v. Union of India,176 the NGT held respondent companies responsible
for oil spill and pollution caused by sinking of the ship. It was observed that the ship was not
in a seaworthy condition. It is further reaffirmed that if environmental pollution is caused
beyond a certain limit or is caused by any accident or unforeseen event then the cost of
measures taken by the government to restore the environment will be recovered from the
“polluter”.177 In Indian Council for enviro-legal Action v. Union of India,178 the court has the
power to use ‘polluter pays principle’ and hence directed the defendants to pay compensation
under section-3 and 5 of the environment protection act, 1986 to repair damage caused to the
ecology of the region. If any private entity causes serious and irreversible harm to environment
then it is liable to compensate for restoration of ecology of region. In instant case, since there
were no steps taken by polluters to curb pollution, hence liable to pay compensation.179
[C] MALTA ENTERPRISE IS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION

173
Article III (1) of the CLC 1969, as amended by Article IV (1) of the 1992 Protocol.
174
Article II of 1969 CLC as replaced by Article 3 of the 1992 Protocol.
175
Phillipe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, Vol.1 658 (1995).
176
Samir Mehta v. Union of India, (2016) SCC Online NGT 479.
177
The environment protection act, § 9, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986.
178
Indian Council for enviro-legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
179
¶ 16, Moot Compromise.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 17 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

[¶42] The Principle of No-Fault Liability by its very virtue places the onus upon the
Respondents to prove that they had adhered to the Doctrine of Due Diligence, and had carried
out the essence of the Precautionary Principle and that the accident occurred despite all
reasonable care and caution and efforts on their part. The Supreme Court of India in the case
of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors.,180 by invoking the Polluter Pays Principle after
issuance of show cause notice, imposed the pollution fine in addition to payment for restoration
of environment and ecology. They have a liability to pay for their default, negligence and the
pollution that they have already caused on the basis of the Polluter Pays Principle.
[¶43] Section 71 of Merchant Shipping Act clearly postulates that the owner necessarily does
not have to be the registered owner but it could be any person where any person is beneficially
interested otherwise than by way of mortgage in a ship or a share in the ship registered in the
name of any other person the person so interested shall, as well as registered owner, be subject
to pecuniary penalties imposed under the Act. Pollution causes loss to those who have an
economic stake in the unpolluted nature of sea and shore-those who earn their living from
tourism or from fishing.181 The greatest loss is suffered by the state or to say national
government agency which spends large sums of money in cleaning up costs.182 The claim was
an “attempt to evaluate the species killed in the intertidal zone by the oil spill and to claim
damages in accordance with that value determination.183
[¶44] In Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. West Bengal Pollution Control Board,184
the principle of polluter pays was strictly applied a bottling and beverage giant and NGT
ordered that the cost of abatement of pollution must be borne by the concerned ‘polluting
industry’. In Human care charitable medical trust v. Union of India,185 NGT directed the
human health care hospital to pay the ‘environmental compensation’ for violating the
environmental principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays
principle in deciding environmental issues.186 In Chadha Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar
and Ors.,187 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the respondent Authorities is liable to pay
environmental compensation by applying polluter pays principle and precautionary principle
proportionate the damage caused on account of their actions. In K.K. Singh v. National Ganga

180
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1515.
181
Robert P. Grime, Shipping Law, 220 (Sweet and Maxwell London 1st ed/1978).
182
Bruce B Weyhrauch, “Oil Spill Litigation: Private Party Lawsuits and Limitations”, 27 Land 370 (1992)
183
In re Oil Spill Amoco Cadiz, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16832 29.
184
Hindustan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. WB Pollution Control Board, Principal Bench, Appeal No. 10 of 2011.
185
Human care charitable medical trust v. union of India, (2016) SCC OnLine NGT 292.
186
National Green tribunal Act, 2010, § 20, No. 19, Acts of Parliament, 2010.
187
Chadha Sugar Mills Private Limited Through Director v. Sushil Kumar and Ors., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 713.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 18 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

River Basin Authority,188 the NGT directed the industry polluting the Ganga River basin to pay
a significant amount of compensation to Central Pollution control Board (CPCB). In Heilgers
Chem (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Pollution Control Board,189 the NGT held that the appellant has violated
the provisions of Water Act, 1974, Air Act, 1981 and EP Act, 1986 and is liable to pay
environmental compensation of Rs. 25,52,34,375/-.
[D] THERE IS JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITIES ON RESPONDENTS FOR COMPENSATION
[¶45] The Honourable Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and Another vs. Union
of India and Others,190 and the Honourable NGT in Original Application number 606/2018
compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 and in several other cases has
directed the board to impose environmental compensation on all individuals/Industries/mines/
Institution/entities, etc who are causing damage to the environment on the principle of “Polluter
Pays”. In Vellore citizens welfare forum v. Union of India,191 various tanneries in state of Tamil
Nadu were causing severe pollution in river Pallar, court directing tanneries to pay adequate
compensation held that although tanneries are a major source of foreign exchange earnings and
provides jobs to large number of people but they cause significant harm to environment.
[¶46] The NGT, in TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.,192 explicitly
underlined the 'twin objectives' of payment of compensation by polluters, vis, compensating
the victims of the loss they suffered and infliction of punitive consequences on the defendants.
In Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Union of India,193 the NGT imposed on defendant company
Rs. 5 crores for contravening mandatory provisions of several environment laws. In Bajri Lease
Loi Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan,194 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of
the compensation. In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati,195 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court upheld the decision of NGT and directed each of the units to deposit a
compensation of Rs 10 lakhs for having caused environmental degradation.

HENCE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE EXISTS A JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITIES ON

ALL THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION.

188
K.K. Singh v. National Ganga River Basin Authority, (2013) SCC OnLine NGT 2214.
189
Heilgers Chem (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Pollution Control Board, (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 278; See also, Shailesh
Singh v. Al-Dua Food Processing (P) Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine NGT 252
190
Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and Another v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition Civil number 375/2012.
191
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
192
TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors, (2016) SCC OnLine NGT 1196.
193
Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Union of India, (2016) SCC Online NGT 4213.
194
Bajri Lease Loi Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1043, Para 16.
195
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, (2020) 17 SCC 157.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER 19 | PAGE

 SHRI I. M. NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022-23

PRAYER

It is hereinafter humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica that in the light
of issue raised, argument advanced, authorities cited and pleadings made, the Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Delta Shipping Company and Malta Enterprise is liable for damage occurred to the
marine ecosystem.
2. The State has failed to perform all the necessary steps in order to curb down the
environmental degradation.
3. The Action of State is not in consonance with fundamental Rights.
4. There exists a joint and several liabilities on all the Respondents to pay compensation.

AND / OTHERWISE

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

SD/-

(COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER )

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF T HE PETITIONER XV | PAGE