ATHARVA V.

DESHPANDE

ROLL NO: - 02

B.A.L.L.B 5TH

MOOT MEMORIAL

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF Indiana

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

NGO (PETITIONER)

V.

The State of Indiana (RESPONDENT)

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 2

 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................. 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................... 5

 LEGISLATION
 CASES REFERRED
 BOOKS REFERRED
 LEGAL DATABASES
 IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 8

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...................................................................................................11

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ...............................................................................................12

PLEADINGS............................................................................................................................13

PRAYER................................................................................................................................. 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 3

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

V. Versus
SC Supreme Court
ART. Article
PIL Public Interest Litigation
NGT National Green Tribunal
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
ICESCR The International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights
HON’BLE. Honorable
FRs Fundamental Rights
AIR All India Reporter
Corp Corporation
Ors. Others
Ltd. Limited
Vol. Volume

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 4

 LEGISLATION

•THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

•THE ENVIRONMENT ACT, 1986.

•THE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES, 1986

. •NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010

•WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION), 1974

•THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,

REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013

•MINES AND MINERALS ACT

CASES REFERRED

 Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. on 28 August, 1992

 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Suppl. (2)
51)

 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V. UOI AIR 1996 SC 2715

 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar 1991 AIR 420 1991
 Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P 1987 AIR 374
 Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors.; on 18
April, 2013

BOOKS REFERRED

 V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED., 2023).

 DR. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH ED., 2009).
 P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (14TH ED., 2017).
 DR JN. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51ST ED., 2014).
 HM SEERVAI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH ED., 2010).
 RS. BEDI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (10TH ED., 2023).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 5

  DR. S.C KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (IST ED., 2008).
 DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,54â„¢ EDITION, 2017.
 CK TAKWANI LECTURES ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FOURTH EDITION,
2007.
 KD GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION, 2018.
 UNIVERAL'S CRIMINAL MANUAL, 2017 EDITION.
 SHAILENDER MALIK, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, TWENTY FIFTH
EDITION, 2011.
 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, THIRTHY
FOURTH EDITION, 2012

LEGAL DATABASES

 WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
 WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 WWW.LAWRATO.COM
 WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
 WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
 WWWINDLAW.COM
 WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
 WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
 WWW.WESTLAW.COM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 6

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS

HONOURABLE COURT UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Art 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. -

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

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

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 7

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court, the facts of the case are
summarized as follows:

1. Indiana is the second largest country in the world in terms of population and has rich
reserves of natural resources. In Indiana population is largely dependent upon agriculture and
animal husbandry. A large amount of water is needed for the daily sustenance of the Indiana
population. A similar has been the case with electricity as well. Rural Indiana has been not
electrified for a long time and still, there are villages where electricity has not been reached.
Industrial production, education of students, and agricultural production suffer due to short
supply of electricity resulting in a slowing of the development process.

2. The Narima River traverses three of Indiana's north-western states: Paschim Pradesh,
Madhya Rashtra, and Uttar Rashtra. Central Government in consultation with the State
Government of the above States decided to sanction a mega dam project along the Narima
River. The Indiana government sought the World Bank's assistance to build a complex of
dams as part of the “Narada Valley Development Project.” The Narada Project included the
creation of thirty large dams, 135 medium dams, and 3,000 small dams.

3. The Indiana Sarovar Project in the state of Paschim Pradesh includes the most
controversial large dam. The government claimed that the dam could solve various problems
related to a shortage in the supply of water and electricity and the said region would flourish
economically. The World Bank also granted some funds and for the remaining of the funds
Government decided to issue Governmental bonds and raise money through them.

4. In its initial assessment of the entire project, the Government recognized three key areas
that were to be taken up for meeting legal compliances and to clear the area for setting up the
dam. These areas were the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, Compensation Policy for
resettled populations, and Environment Impact Study of the entire project as per
environmental laws. A thorough environmental study of the project was required.

5. However, the government adopted a hurried approach to constructing the dam and did not
allot any time for the Standardized Environmental Impact study that was mandated by
various Environmental Legislations. Remarkably, the government also permitted routine
environmental studies rather than the comprehensive ones that were necessary. A limited
group of environmentalists was called to study the project and submit the report. The

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 8

population sought to be displaced was never consulted and they were not informed about the
entire manner in which the project was being undertaken. There were several ambiguities in
the resettlement and rehabilitation policies. Media and social workers demanded a transparent
approach in the entire process. Every norm of Environmental Impact Assessment was being
waved off and relaxed for the project.

6. The Constitution of Indiana guarantees protection to all citizens in the form of

Fundamental rights. It guarantees the Right to life under Article 21. The Constitution has also
made special provisions for the protection of the Tribal population of Indiana, which include
provisions for their peaceful co-existence, and for saving their culture and traditions.
Recognizing and conserving the right over property and forest and also an elaborative policy
for their rehabilitation and resettlement during the time of their displacement from their
natural places of existence. But the population resettled was being given accommodation in a
very faraway place which not in any fashion resembled their native place of settlement. Many
leading social workers joined the protest and labeled the approach to be violating the
fundamental and human rights of citizens and various environmental legislations that were in
force. Due to the ongoing revolt against the dam project, the World Bank decided to impose
some qualifying criteria for releasing funds. World Bank's Operational Policies and
Directives provided for general resettlement policy, which provided that upon resettlement,
displaced persons should retrieve at least their previous standard of living. After this, the
government has done many things for the tribals and refugees as per the guidelines of the
World Bank. However, the stakeholders were still not satisfied with the efficacy of such
arrangements.

7. The displacement of tribes impacted their culture and gradually their rich traditions and
culture. Environmentalists also continued to protest against the project because no standard of
“Environmental Impact Assessment” (EIA) was performed and in the absence of any EIA,
the project could turn out to be a disaster for the region whose long-term impacts may include
frequent flooding, complete disappearance of flora and fauna from the region. Due to the
Government of Indiana's pressure, the World Bank approved the remaining funds even
though the Indiana Ministry of Environment and Forests had not consented to the project due
to incomplete environmental impact studies, which were never performed after the approval.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 9

8. The revolt by social workers attained a nationwide status and came to be known as the
Narada Bachao Aandolan (NBA). (NBA) through its representatives filed a Writ Petition
under Article 32 saying that there occurs to be a violation of Fundamental Rights of tribal
population. In the said petition, Narada Bachao Aandolan (NBA) pleaded before the Court to
set aside this project on the ground of the said violations

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 10

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

ISSUE I

Is the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana Maintainable?

ISSUE II

Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Tribal and other affected people have been violated?

ISSUE III

Whether the environmental clearance is valid?

SUMMARY OF PLEADING

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 11

ISSUE I: - Whether the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indiana is Maintainable?

The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution is
maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed with the apprehension of
violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.

ISSUE II: - Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Tribal and other affected people
have been violated?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that; Article 19 and Article 21 of the
Constitution have been violated on account of arbitrary action of the state. Thus, resulting in
violation of Article 14 as well. Right to Reside, Right to Livelihood, and Right to Shelter
have been violated on account of this dam activity. It is further submitted that the Right to
Culture has also been violated since; the villagers will be subjected to forced assimilation and
isolation.

ISSUE III: - Whether the environmental impact assessment is valid?

It is humbly submitted that the RESPONDENT herein has not granted the environmental
clearance by the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, thereby violating various
provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and
Environment Protection Rules, 1986. It is submitted that the environmental clearance when
validated causes damage to the environment, resulting in a disturbance to the livelihood of
the tribal community, causing health hazards to the tribes which in turn infringes various
fundamental rights of the tribal community along with other provisions of the Constitution.

PLEADING

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 12

ISSUE - 1: Whether the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indiana is Maintainable?

Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana states that when there is a violation of fundamental
rights any person can move to the court for an appropriate remedy. The significant aspect of
the Indiana Constitution is the jurisdiction it confers on the Supreme Court to issue writs
under Article 32. The sole object of Article 32 is the enforcement of fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 1of the
Constitution. Public Function is one which "seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the
public or a section of the public. “Any institutions engaged in performing public functions
are, by the functions performed, can be termed as government agencies. Further, under the
well-established doctrine of Parens Patriae, the State must protect and take into custody the
rights and privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations.
Thus, in this present case, Dam construction activity taken up by government agencies is both
a public function and a governmental function. If a government agency is a company, a PIL
can be instituted against any party under Art.32 of the Constitution if the State is made a co-
party in the petition.
1.1. The petition has been filed in the public interest and is therefore maintainable as public
interest litigation. To invoke the writ jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the
fundamental right must have been infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient.
Applying the doctrine of 'reasonable apprehension', this Hon'ble Court may interfere
directly in the said case. The most fundamental right of an individual is his right to life;
if an administrative decision may put his life at risk, the basis for the decision surely
calls for the most anxious scrutiny according to the principle of 'anxious scrutiny'. Thus,
the petition filed before this apex court is maintainable.

1.2. The jurisdiction of the SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution extends to the violation
of the rights alleged in the present matter.

1
Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the constitution.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 13

The fundamental right to equality enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution has been
violated because of the steps taken for the implementation of the project. The fundamental
right to reside in any part of the country and to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business enshrined under Art. 19 will be violated because of the
implementation of the project. The fundamental right to shelter and livelihood enshrined
under Art. 21 of the Constitution will be violated on account of arbitrary action of the State.

In Janata Dal v H.S Chowdhary2. It was opined that:

“The Supreme Court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies to provide
access to justice who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty
have no meaning. The only way this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions.” In the
instant case, the very fact that the petitioner is in a grievous situation that the said project
curtails the basic fundamental right. This empowers them to approach the Supreme Court and
the court to grant relief by allowing the petition.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that the present PIL is maintainable against the State of Indiana

Thus, the petitioner submitted that the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indiana is Maintainable.

ISSUE -2. Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Tribal and other affected people
have been violated?

The petitioner humbly submits that the Narada and the policy decisions of the government
regarding the matter are violative of the fundamental rights, constitutional protection, and
constitutional safeguards enshrined in the Constitution. It is submitted that implementation of
the Narada Project would result in a violation of multiple fundamental and statutory rights
that emanate therefrom. These rights include the right to the right to a clean environment
under Art. 21 [B], the right to a clean health under Art. 21 [C], the right to livelihood under
Art. 21.

● Violation of Constitutional protection and safeguards

2
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. on 28 August, 1992

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 14

1. Violation of Article 19

The rights of the villagers to settle reside and own property anywhere in the country as
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (e) 3of the Constitution has been violated. Thus, it is a rude
shock to find the Government and the Hon'ble Court to be complicit in an act that not only
infringes upon the fundamental rights of innocent civilians but also restrains the movement of
the latter in the village which deprives them of their rights to peacefully coexist with the
nature, of which they are an integral part. The act of the Government, curtailing the
movement of the village dwellers thus violates their fundamental right to livelihood (vide Art.
21), in the present case. The right to residence and settlement is a fundamental right under
Art. 19(1) (e) and is a facet meaningful right to life under Art. 21.

2. Violation of Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution envisages the right to livelihood as a fundamental right. The
Supreme Court has referred to the classic judgment of Field. One of the words; wherein he
stated that by the term 'life' as used means something more than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is
enjoyed. Also, ICCPR4, UDHR,5 and ICESCR6 recognize the right to life and an adequate
standard of living.

Further to establish a violation of Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of
Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 198. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness
because it negates equality and permeates the entire fabric of the Rule of Law. Therefore,
every action of the State must be guided by reason for the public good and not by whim,
caprice, and abuse of power. In the Olga Tellis 7case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue
of eviction of slum dwellers in Bombay. The court held that the right to life under Article 21
includes the right to livelihood. It emphasized that eviction without providing an alternative
livelihood would violate the right to life of the slum dwellers. This case laid the foundation
for the recognition of the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life.

3. The Right to the Environment has been violated.

3
every citizen of India has the right "to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
4
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
5
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
6
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
7
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 15

Article 21 of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Under Art. 21 of the
Constitution, people have the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full
enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws
including even the Government with its policies, as in the present case, a citizen has a right to
have recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which
may be detrimental to the quality of life. It does not only refer to the necessity to comply with
procedural requirements but also the substantive rights of citizens. The governmental policies
regarding the Narada project were not very clear about the resettlement of tribal communities.
There is also a question about the forest and living creatures. The failure of the government to
assess the impact can be taken as a mark of its incompetence. In a plethora of cases, the
Supreme Court has held the inalienability of the Right to Environment from the Right to Life
is envisaged by Art 21. It has even held that protection of the environment will have
precedence over the economic interests of the country. The "Right to Life" under Article 21
means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment free from the dangers of diseases and
infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of sanitation, and environment have been held
to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects the life of the citizens and it
amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens because of the hazards created
if not checked.

In the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 8, the Court took
cognizance of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the
water resources, rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land. The Court issued
several directions to deal with the problem.

In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar9: The court held that the right to life
includes the right to enjoy unpolluted air and water. In this case, there is a constitutional
imperative on the state not only to ensure and safeguard the proper environment but also an
imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect, and improve the natural
environment.

Thus, the counsel submitted that the grant of Environment Clearance Certificate infringes the
fundamental rights of the citizens of Indica.
8
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI AIR 1996 SC 2715.

9
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar 1991 AIR 420 1991

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 16

2.1 Whether the displacement of the tribal from the area where the proposed dam is to
be constructed amounts to a violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of Indiana?

Article 21 of the Constitution envisages the right to life and personal liberty of a person. The
word “Life” under Article 21 means a quality of life, which includes the right of food,
reasonable accommodation to live in, and the right to a wholesome environment.

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 "embodies a constitutional value of supreme

importance in a democratic society." Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as "the procedural
magna carta protective of life and liberty.

The unchecked illegal occupation of tribal lands by non-tribal had slowly deprived the Tribe
of their means of livelihood and had threatened their indigeneity. Thereby attempting to
deprive the Tribe of their right to livelihood. The SC in numerous cases has reiterated the
inalienability of the Right to Environment from the Right to Life. The Hon'ble SC has also
held that Environmental protection will take precedence over the country's economic
interests. To deprive a person of his means of livelihood would be the easiest way to deprive
a person of his Right to Life.

In Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P,10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the
rights of forest dwellers take precedence over any other important public purpose. The quest
to transform the tribal belt and the natural resources has resulted in snatching away the tribal
lands, thereby depriving the life and livelihood of the Tribe. Various legislations have
established the intention of the Legislature regarding the rights of the tribal communities. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the International Conventions have elaborated and
emphasized the rights of the Tribal dwellers. Therefore, we submit that tribal lives are
centered on the forests in which they dwell, and relocating them is robbing them of their
livelihoods. Therefore, we submit that the respondents have failed to fulfill their obligations.

Article 21 focuses on the right to a clean environment and the personal liberty of the citizen.
In our case respondent herein has not granted the environmental clearance by the
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, thereby violating various provisions of
the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Environment Protection Rules, 1986. This
particular petition questions the validity of the environmental clearance, which when
validated causes damage to the environment.

10
Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P 1987 AIR 374

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 17

Thus, the counsel submitted that the Fundamental Rights of the Tribal and other
affected people have been violated.

ISSUE 3: - Whether the environmental impact assessment is valid?

The petitioner humbly submits that the respondent herein has not granted the environmental
clearance by the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, which is necessary
before every project commences, thereby violating various provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Environment Protection
Rules, 1986. This particular petition questions the validity of the environmental clearance,
which when validated causes damage to the environment, resulting in a disturbance to the
livelihood of the tribal community which in turn infringes various fundamental rights of the
tribal community.

3.1. Environmental clearance invalid based on procedural violations It is submitted that the
respondent, which was under a duty to satisfy the requirements listed in the EIA Notification
2006, has committed gross violations of the procedure before granting Environmental
Clearance for the Narada project in and around the reserved forest areas. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v Ministry of Environment
11
and Forests directed the authority to follow various conditions for converting forests for
non-forest purposes which includes the compliance of all the Rules and Acts related to
environmental clearance. This position was made clear in a decided case, where it was held
that the Ministry of Environment and Forests being the nodal agency had to follow the step
procedure namely Scoping, Public Consultation, and the Appraisal, enshrined in the EIA
Notification 2006, before granting of environmental clearance.

3.2 Environment Clearance when validated

It is submitted that the petitioner would be subject to grave injustice when the arbitrary
environmental clearance, which does not align with the Environment Impact Assessment
11
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment & Forest &Ors.; on 18 April, 2013

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 18

Notification, is validated. The Constitution protects its citizens against any injustice or
violation of their rights.

3.2.1. Violation of test of reasonableness Section 2(ii) (iv) of The Forest Conservation Act,
1980 provides that the Central Government can allow deforestation for “non-forest purposes”
if the government considers it reasonable based on the reports of its committee to cut any
forest for a particular purpose, which is done reasonably.

In the present case, there has been a total non-application of mind in granting environmental clearance
without taking into consideration the details of the public hearing, which was conducted only after the
application was submitted to the respondent. The respondent herein has acted unreasonably by
neglecting the tribal people. This would grossly impact the lives of the tribal community and would fail
the test of reasonability under Article 19 of the Constitution.

3.2.2. Violation of various provisions of directive principles read with fundamental rights It is
submitted by the petitioner that the arbitrary and unreasonable validation of the grant of environmental
clearance would result in damage to the environment, the life of the tribal people and their health
violating various provisions under the Constitution. The provisions under the Directive Principles of
State Policy are violated when read with the provisions of Fundamental Rights when the
environmental clearance is validated. Article 48-A lays down that the state shall endeavor to protect
and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Also, according to
the fundamental duties listed in Article 51-A of the Constitution, the state must protect the environment
and have compassion for living creatures.

The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without degrading the
environment, the development activity is planned, it is allowed to go ahead. In case of doubt, the
protection of the environment would have precedence over the economic interest. In the present case,
there has been a high level of doubt arising due to the arbitrary grant of environmental clearance
without any public hearing reports. The present environment clearance has not taken into consideration
any recent reports on the environment assessment impact. This clearly shows that the respondent
herein has not taken due care to assess the anticipated damage.

The arbitrary and unreasonable environmental clearance granted by negligence on the part of the
respondent, neglecting the environmental aspects and the life of tribal people, is a transparent and
complete violation of the provisions mentioned above.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 19

To attain the constitutional goal of protecting and improving the environment and protecting
people inhabiting vulnerable areas from the hazardous consequences of the arbitrary exercise
of power without due regard to their life, liberty, and property, the Court should intervene
effectively by issuing appropriate writs, orders, and directions. In a plethora of cases, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has given importance to the health of the individuals exposed to
hazardous substances thereby safeguarding the various Directive Principles under Articles
39(e)12, 4113, 4314, 48-A 15
read with Article 21 to protect the citizens by guaranteeing a
person’s right to live a life of meaningful purpose and dignity. Therefore, it is humbly
submitted by the petitioners that the environmental clearance granted does not align with the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification and is hence invalid. It is also submitted that
the arbitrary and unreasonable environment clearance when validated, violates various
provisions of the Constitution without safeguarding the life of the tribal people. The
petitioner has thus approached this Hon’ble Court and raised issues that have caused grave
injustice to its people.

PRAYER

12
Articles 39(e) :-provides for free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society and ensures justice
for all.
13
Art41 directs the state to secure the right to work, education and public assistance in certain cases such as
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.
14
Art 43 - ensures fair wages and decent standard of life for the workers
15
Art 48A- The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wildlife of the country.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 20

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HUMBLY PRAYSTHAT
THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BE PLEASED:

I. To declare that Mr. Shardul is not guilty of the crime of causing grievous hurt by use
of acid and stalking.

3. To declare that the High Court's acquittal order of Mr. Shardul should be reserved.

PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD

C O N S C I E N C E . AND

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR THE R E S P O N D E N T A S I N

D U T Y B O U N D SHALL EVER PRAY.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERPage 21