——————————————————————————————

VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

(PERSONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY)

——————————————————————————————

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

———————————————————————————————

GREEN MANTRA NGO

(PETITIONER)

V.

BHANWAR LAL (MAHARAJA LAL AND SONS)

(RESPONDENT)

—————————————————————————————————

Case concerning writ petition filed under article 35 of Indian constitution

—————————————————————————————————

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF BOTH PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT

—————————————————————————————————
SUBMITTED BY-
DIYA JAIN (03717703522)
SAANVI BHATI (03817703522)
FRANCIE GARG (03917703522)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT Page No.

❖ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

❖ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

❖ STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

❖ STATEMENT OF FACTS

❖ STATEMENT OF ISSUES

❖ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

❖ ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

❖ PRAYER (FOR PETETIONER)

❖ PRAYER(FOR RESPONDENT)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES

1. K.K. Verma vs. State of Maharashtra (2011)

2. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978
3. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)
4. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli (2007)
5. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004)
6. Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014)
7. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (2006
8. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013)
9. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)
10. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006)
11. Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India (2005)
12. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) (2G Spectrum case)
13. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Tragedy case)
14. Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013)
15. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak case)
16. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
17. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
18. Rural Development Foundation v. Union of India (1996)
19. Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
20. Rural Litigation v. State of UP (1985)
21. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
22. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)
23. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
24. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999),
25. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991),
26. Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013).
BOOKS
 1. Basu D.D., Constitution of India, 14th Edition 2009, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur.
2. Desai. A. Ashok, Environmental Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition 2002, Modern Law House.
3. Doabia T.S, Environmental & Pollution Laws in India, 1st Edition 2005, Wadhwa
Nagpur.
4. Jain M.P, Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Nagpur.
5. Jaswal P.S., Environmental Law, 2nd Edition 2006, Allahabad Law Agency.
6. Karkara G.S., Environmental Law, 1st Edition, 1999, Central Law Publications.
7. Maheshwara N. Swamy , Law relating to Environmental Pollution and Protection, 2nd
Edition 2003, Asia Law House.
8. Malik Sumeet, Environmental Law, 1st Edition 2008, Eastern Book Company

LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
4. Hein Online

LEGISLATIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. Environment Protection Act, 1986
3. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
4. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
5. Indian Forest Act, 1927

CONVENTION
Brundtland Report (1987)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether production of Perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA) and related obnoxious chemicals violates
the Right to Environment provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

ISSUE 2
Whether there is any incongruence between Right to Environment and Right to Livelihood
which was provided by Mr. Bhawar Lal?

ISSUE 3
Whether Mr. Bhawar Lal was going against the cannons of Environment Protection Act, 1986
and environmental laws of the Republic of Indicia?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 1. Whether production of Perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA) and related obnoxious
chemicals violates the Right to Environment provided under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution?

(FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER)

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that the production of Perfluoroalkoxy alkanes
(PFA) and related chemicals by Maharaja Lal and Sons violates the Right to Environment, an
extension of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Right to a Clean Environment: Article 21 includes the right to pollution-free air and water, as
affirmed in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991). The release of hazardous fumes by the
factory constitutes a violation, impacting health and ecology (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
1987, 1988).
Public Trust Doctrine: In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), the Court held that natural
resources are held in trust by the state. The factory's chemical discharge breaches this doctrine.
Precautionary Principle: The Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) case
emphasizes preventive action in the face of environmental risk. The factory ignored repeated
warnings, violating this principle.
Corporate Negligence: The factory management’s failure to address toxic fumes, as seen in Rural
Litigation v. State of UP (1985), shows negligence.
Polluter Pays Principle: The Court ruled in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of
India (1996) that polluters must pay for environmental damage. The factory should bear
responsibility for the harm caused.

Thus, the factory’s actions infringe upon the right to a healthy environment under Article 21,

requiring judicial intervention.

(FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT)

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that the production of Perfluoroalkoxy alkanes
(PFA) does not violate the Right to Environment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
emphasizing several points:

Industrial Growth & National Interest: The industrial production of PFA is crucial for national
development, economic growth, and job creation. Stopping it without conclusive evidence of
harm would damage the country's progress.
Compliance with Environmental Laws: The factory has followed all environmental laws and
obtained necessary clearances. Without concrete proof of violations, operations should not be
stopped.
Judicial Restraint & Lack of Proof: No direct evidence links the factory to environmental or
health crises. Judicial interference without solid proof would harm the business and economy.
Protection of Livelihoods: The factory provides employment to hundreds of workers, supporting
their right to livelihood under Article 21.
Sustainable Development: The factory aims to balance economic growth with environmental
protection, contributing to the national economy.
Corporate Responsibility: The company has actively contributed to community development
through CSR initiatives, improving local livelihoods.
Government Approval: The factory’s operations have been legally sanctioned, and its
compliance with environmental standards is endorsed by government bodies.

The respondents request that the Hon’ble Court allow their operations to continue, as halting
them would disproportionately harm the local economy and people.
 2. Whether there is any incongruence between Right to Environment and Right to
Livelihood which was provided by Mr. Bhawar Lal?

(FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER)

The petitioner, Green Mantra, argues that there is a clear incongruence between the Right to
Environment and the Right to Livelihood as provided by Mr. Bhawar Lal. While the Right to
Livelihood is undoubtedly important, it cannot be exercised at the expense of the Right to
Environment. The factory's operations have resulted in significant environmental damage,
including air pollution, water contamination, and the destruction of local flora and fauna.

Violation of the Right to Environment: The factory's operations have led to severe air
pollution, water contamination, and the destruction of local ecosystems. This constitutes a
violation of the fundamental right to a healthy environment thus leading to a breach of Article 21
under the Constitution which guarantees Right to life and liberty. The Supreme Court has
interpreted this Article to include the right to a healthy environment in the case of M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India. Moreover, in the case of Rural Development Foundation v. Union of India
(1996), The Court recognized the right to a pollution-free environment as an essential part of the
right to life.

Prioritization of Profit over Environment: Mr. Bhawar Lal has prioritized profit maximization
over environmental protection. The factory's disregard for environmental regulations and the
well-being of the local community is evident which goes against the principles of Article 48A of
Constitution which states a Fundamental duty to protect the environment. In the case of, Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), The Court emphasized the "polluter pays"
principle to make sure of the accountability.

The petitioner argues that the Right to Environment is paramount and cannot be compromised
for the sake of economic development. The factory's operations have had a devastating impact on
the local community and the environment. Therefore, the Court should order the closure of the
factory and impose appropriate penalties on Mr. Bhawar Lal for his violations of environmental
laws.
(FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT)

The respondent, Mr. Bhawar Lal, contends that there is no inherent incongruence between the
Right to Environment and the Right to Livelihood. He argues that his factory has been a vital
contributor to the local economy, providing employment opportunities and contributing to the
overall development of the region.

The respondent asserts that the Right to Livelihood, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, takes precedence over the Right to Environment in situations where the former is
threatened by the latter. He argues that the factory has been a source of livelihood for numerous
individuals in the local community, and that closing it down would have severe economic
consequences. In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation it was established
that the Right to Livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. And in
the case of, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India the importance of balancing the Right to
Environment with the Right to Livelihood, holding that both are essential for human dignity was
recognized.

The respondent contends that the factory has obtained all necessary environmental clearances
and has been operating within the prescribed limits. He argues that the recent incident was an
unfortunate accident and that the factory is not responsible for the ill health of the workers. In the
case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the importance of strict adherence
to environmental regulations and the need for industries to adopt sustainable practices was
recognized.

The respondent argues that the factory has made significant contributions to the local economy,
including job creation, infrastructure development, and philanthropic activities. He contends that
the environmental costs associated with the factory are outweighed by its benefits to the
community. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India the importance of
sustainable development, which balances economic growth with environmental protection was
given.
3. Whether Mr. Bhawar Lal was going against the cannons of Environment Protection
Act, 1986 and environmental laws of the Republic of Indicia?

(FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER)

1. Violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - The factory
released harmful pollutants, specifically toxic chemicals like Hydrogen Fluoride, beyond
permissible limits, violating the Environment Protection Act. Sections 7 and 8 clearly
prohibit the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants exceeding prescribed
standards, and the factory's actions have not adhered to these statutory provisions.

2. Flawed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process - The factory obtained

clearances without conducting meaningful public consultation, as required under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification. The local population, especially indigenous
communities, were neither adequately consulted nor were documents provided in vernacular
languages. This failure undermines the validity of the environmental clearance obtained by
the factory.

3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to a Healthy Environment) - The factory’s operations,

through the release of toxic fumes and pollutants, have infringed on the fundamental right to
life, which includes the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution
(in pari materia with Indian law). The severe health issues suffered by workers and residents
due to pollution from the factory directly compromise this fundamental right.

4. Corruption and Bribery in Obtaining Clearances - Allegations suggest that the factory
owners bribed local environmental authorities to obtain necessary clearances. These reports
cast doubt on the legitimacy of the environmental approvals, suggesting that the factory
bypassed legal and regulatory scrutiny to continue operations despite posing a risk to public
health and the environment.

5. Non-Compliance with Hazardous Waste Management Rules - The factory did not properly
dispose of hazardous waste, including toxic chemicals like Hydrogen Fluoride, as required
under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Improper waste management and the
unchecked release of toxic chemicals into the environment demonstrate clear violations of
these rules.

6. Long-Term Ecological Damage - The factory’s emissions have led to widespread

ecological degradation, including soil contamination, water pollution, and a decline in local
biodiversity. This long-term environmental damage threatens both the natural habitat and the
livelihoods of those who rely on agriculture and local ecosystems.

7. Endangerment of Worker and Public Health - The health crisis faced by the factory
workers, including severe cases of vomiting blood and respiratory issues, as well as the death
of three individuals, points to a severe failure in maintaining a safe working environment.
The harmful fumes emitted by the factory have not only affected the workforce but have also
endangered local residents, showing negligence in safeguarding public health.
(FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT)

1. Violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - The factory
released harmful pollutants, specifically toxic chemicals like Hydrogen Fluoride, beyond
permissible limits, violating the Environment Protection Act. Sections 7 and 8 clearly
prohibit the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants exceeding prescribed
standards, and the factory's actions have not adhered to these statutory provisions.

2. Flawed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process - The factory obtained

clearances without conducting meaningful public consultation, as required under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification. The local population, especially indigenous
communities, were neither adequately consulted nor were documents provided in vernacular
languages. This failure undermines the validity of the environmental clearance obtained by
the factory.

3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to a Healthy Environment) - The factory’s operations,

through the release of toxic fumes and pollutants, have infringed on the fundamental right to
life, which includes the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution
(in pari materia with Indian law). The severe health issues suffered by workers and residents
due to pollution from the factory directly compromise this fundamental right.

4. Corruption and Bribery in Obtaining Clearances - Allegations suggest that the factory
owners bribed local environmental authorities to obtain necessary clearances. These reports
cast doubt on the legitimacy of the environmental approvals, suggesting that the factory
bypassed legal and regulatory scrutiny to continue operations despite posing a risk to public
health and the environment.

5. Non-Compliance with Hazardous Waste Management Rules - The factory did not properly
dispose of hazardous waste, including toxic chemicals like Hydrogen Fluoride, as required
under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Improper waste management and the
unchecked release of toxic chemicals into the environment demonstrate clear violations of
these rules.
6. Long-Term Ecological Damage - The factory’s emissions have led to widespread
ecological degradation, including soil contamination, water pollution, and a decline in local
biodiversity. This long-term environmental damage threatens both the natural habitat and the
livelihoods of those who rely on agriculture and local ecosystems.

7. Endangerment of Worker and Public Health - The health crisis faced by the factory
workers, including severe cases of vomiting blood and respiratory issues, as well as the death
of three individuals, points to a severe failure in maintaining a safe working environment.
The harmful fumes emitted by the factory have not only affected the workforce but have also
endangered local residents, showing negligence in safeguarding public health.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether production of Perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA) and related obnoxious

chemicals violates the Right to Environment provided under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution?

(FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER)

1. Violation of Section 7 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986

Under Section 7 of the Environment Protection Act, industries are prohibited from emitting
pollutants in excess of the prescribed standards. The factory, by discharging Hydrogen Fluoride,
has exceeded these limits, contributing to air pollution and serious health issues. This violation of
statutory norms makes the factory liable for penal action under Section 15 of the Act.
- Case Law: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak case) upheld the principle
of strict liability for industries causing environmental damage. The petitioners argue that the
factory must be held accountable under a similar principle.

2. Failure to Conduct Adequate Public Consultation

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification requires meaningful public
consultation with affected communities before clearances are granted. In this case, the
consultation process was flawed as local residents, including indigenous populations, were
neither properly informed nor consulted in the vernacular language. This violates the principle of
environmental justice and transparency as laid down in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V.
Nayudu (1999), where public participation in environmental decision-making was emphasized.
- Case Law: The principle of "free, prior, and informed consent" was reaffirmed in Orissa
Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013).
3. Right to Life and a Healthy Environment under Article 21
The petitioner contends that the factory’s actions infringe on the right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution, which has been interpreted to include the right to a healthy environment. The
pollution caused by the factory, leading to health hazards and environmental degradation,
violates this fundamental right, as recognized in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), which
held that the right to pollution-free air is part of the right to life.
- Case Law: In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court recognized
that environmental pollution violates the right to life under Article 21.

4. Negligence in Maintaining Safety Standards

The petitioner argues that the factory failed to maintain proper safety protocols, leading to the
emission of hazardous chemicals like Hydrogen Fluoride. The resulting health problems,
including workers vomiting blood and the deaths of three individuals, demonstrate gross
negligence. The factory's failure to safeguard against foreseeable harm invokes the principle of
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), making them strictly liable for the damage caused.
- Case Law: Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Tragedy case) established that
industries must maintain the highest safety standards, especially when dealing with hazardous
substances.

5. Corruption and Bribery in Environmental Clearances

The petitioner raises serious allegations that the factory obtained environmental clearances
through corrupt practices, including bribery of local environmental officials. This calls into
question the validity of the clearances granted. The factory’s operations should be suspended
pending an independent investigation into these allegations, as improper clearance renders the
factory’s operations illegal.
- Case Law: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) (2G Spectrum case)
highlighted that any action tainted by corruption is subject to legal review and can be set aside.

6. Violation of Hazardous Waste Management Rules

The factory has violated the Hazardous Waste Management Rules by failing to properly manage
and dispose of toxic waste, particularly Hydrogen Fluoride. The improper disposal of hazardous
chemicals has resulted in contamination of the local soil and water, causing long-term
environmental damage.
- Case Law: Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India (2005) reaffirmed the principle
that industries must comply with hazardous waste management regulations to prevent
environmental degradation.

7. Ecological Damage and Environmental Restoration

The factory’s activities have caused long-term ecological damage, including soil degradation, air
pollution, and loss of biodiversity. The petitioner seeks an order for the factory to not only cease
operations but also to undertake environmental restoration efforts. The Polluter Pays Principle
laid down in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) requires the
polluter to bear the costs of restoring the environment.
- Case Law: The Polluter Pays Principle has been reaffirmed in multiple cases, including T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006).
(FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT)

1. Compliance with the Environment Protection Act, 1986

The factory has obtained all necessary environmental clearances as required under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986. The factory’s operations are regularly monitored by the State
Pollution Control Board, and no violations have been recorded during inspections. In the absence
of evidence showing that pollution levels exceed permissible limits, the factory cannot be held
liable for environmental violations.
- Case Law: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) affirmed that once
environmental clearances are obtained following due process, operations cannot be halted
without substantial evidence of violations.

2. No Proven Link Between Emissions and Health Issues

The petitioner has failed to provide direct scientific evidence linking the factory’s emissions to
the workers' health problems. While Hydrogen Fluoride is cited as a cause, no definitive studies
or tests have conclusively established that the factory’s emissions were responsible for the
illnesses. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to demonstrate causation, which they have
not fulfilled.
- Case Law: Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) upheld the need for
scientific evidence before attributing health problems to industrial pollution.

3. Economic Contribution and Right to Livelihood (Article 21)

The factory has provided employment to hundreds of local residents, many of whom are
marginalized and depend on this income for their survival. Shutting down the factory would
result in significant unemployment and violate their right to livelihood under Article 21, as held
in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985). The right to livelihood is an essential
component of the right to life, and economic welfare must be balanced with environmental
concerns.
- Case Law: In Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (2006), the Court balanced
environmental considerations with economic development, allowing the factory to continue
operations with stricter safeguards.
4. Adherence to Environmental Safeguards
The factory has implemented environmental safeguards, including the installation of pollution
control mechanisms and adherence to permissible emission levels. The factory conducts regular
environmental audits and participates in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives to
improve the local community. These actions demonstrate the factory’s commitment to
minimizing its environmental impact.
- Case Law: Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) supported sustainable development
when industries demonstrated compliance with environmental safeguards.

5. Scientific and Industrial Importance of Products

The factory produces chemicals that are vital for scientific and industrial purposes, contributing
to the nation's growth in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and research. Disrupting the factory’s
operations would have wider negative implications for the national economy and international
collaborations in science and technology.
- Case Law: Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) acknowledged the importance of
balancing environmental regulation with the need for industrial progress.

6. No Legal Basis for Allegations of Corruption

The allegations of bribery and corruption raised by the petitioner are baseless and speculative.
No official investigation has found evidence of corrupt practices in obtaining environmental
clearances. The factory has followed due legal processes in securing clearances, and these should
not be dismissed without proper evidence.
- Case Law: In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli (2007), the Court
held that allegations of corruption must be substantiated with concrete proof before any action
can be taken.

7. Sustainable Development and National Interest

The factory plays a crucial role in sustainable industrial development, which is in line with the
government’s policies on economic liberalization and growth. The Court in Samatha v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (1997) emphasized the need to balance environmental concerns with national
development goals, ensuring that industries operate in a manner that fosters both economic
progress and environmental responsibility.
- Case Law: The principle of sustainable development was recognized in Narmada Bachao
Andolan (2000), where the Court balanced environmental protection with the need for
infrastructure and economic growth.
 2. Whether there is any incongruence between Right to Environment and Right to
Livelihood which was provided by Mr. Bhawar Lal?

(FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER)

1. Right to a Healthy Environment as Fundamental

The Supreme Court of India has recognized that the Right to Life under Article 21 encompasses
the Right to a healthy environment. This interpretation has been established through various
judgments, including Rural Litigation and Environment Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1985), where the Court emphasized that development should not come at the cost of
environmental degradation. The ecological balance is essential for sustaining livelihoods; thus,
protecting the environment is intrinsically linked to safeguarding human rights.

2. Protection Against Environmental Harm

The incident at Mr. Bhawar Lal's factory, where workers suffered severe health issues due to
toxic fumes, highlights a clear violation of their right to a safe working environment. The
Supreme Court has consistently held that industries must ensure that their operations do not harm
public health or the environment. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997), the Court mandated
that industries must adopt measures to prevent pollution and protect community health. The
factory's operations, which have led to health crises and fatalities, exemplify a failure to uphold
these responsibilities.

3. Precedent on Balancing Rights

The Indian judiciary has often sought to balance economic development with environmental
protection. In cases like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the
Supreme Court reiterated that sustainable development must be pursued, ensuring that economic
activities do not compromise environmental integrity. The petitioner can argue that Mr. Bhawar
Lal's factory prioritizes profit over ecological sustainability, thus violating this principle.
4. Environmental Justice and Community Rights
The local community's right to a clean environment is supported by procedural rights such as
access to information and participation in decision-making processes regarding environmental
matters. The alleged bribery of state authorities for environmental clearances undermines these
rights, as local voices were not considered in approving hazardous operations. This lack of
transparency and accountability contradicts principles of environmental justice recognized by
both domestic and international law.

5. Economic Rights Should Not Compromise Health

While Mr. Bhawar Lal’s factory provides employment opportunities, this cannot justify harmful
practices that endanger public health and violate environmental rights. The Supreme Court has
held that the Right to Livelihood must be balanced with the Right to a healthy environment.
Employment generated through environmentally destructive practices does not equate to
sustainable or just economic development.

6. Legal Framework Supporting Environmental Rights

The Constitution does not explicitly mention environmental rights; however, various articles
imply their necessity:
Article 21: Guarantees the Right to Life, which includes living in a healthy environment.
Article 48A: Directs the State to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g): Mandates every citizen to protect the environment.

In conclusion, the arguments advanced for Green Mantra emphasize that there is no true conflict
between the Right to Environment and Right to Livelihood; rather, they are complementary
when approached sustainably. The adverse health effects caused by Mr. Bhawar Lal's factory
illustrate a clear violation of fundamental rights, necessitating judicial intervention to restore
environmental integrity while ensuring just economic practices. The Supreme Court's upcoming
decision will be pivotal in reinforcing these principles within Indicia’s legal framework.
This approach underscores that economic activities should not undermine essential human rights
and advocates for a balanced interpretation of both rights in favor of sustainable development
and community health.
(FROM SIDE OF RESPONDENT)

1. Legal Framework Supporting Livelihood Rights

The Right to Livelihood is recognized as an extension of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this view, indicating that
economic activities that sustain livelihoods are essential for human dignity and survival. In
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the court articulated that any law affecting personal
liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, thereby implying that economic opportunities are
integral to personal liberty.

2. Sustainable Development as a Guiding Principle

The concept of sustainable development, as defined in the Brundtland Report (1987),

emphasizes meeting present needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet
theirs. This principle supports the notion that economic growth and environmental protection are
not mutually exclusive but can be harmonized. The case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action vs. Union of India (1996) reinforced this by highlighting that industrial development
should not occur at the expense of environmental degradation.

3. Economic Contributions and Community Welfare

Mr. Bhawar Lal's factory has created numerous jobs, thereby contributing to local economic
stability and community welfare. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize
promoting sustained economic growth and decent work for all (Goal 8). The establishment of his
factory aligns with these goals by providing employment opportunities, particularly for
marginalized groups such as women, thus enhancing social equity.

4. Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Responsibility

The argument rests on the premise that Mr. Bhawar Lal has adhered to necessary environmental
regulations, as indicated by government approvals and clearances obtained for his operations.
The principle of due diligence requires businesses to act responsibly concerning environmental
impacts; however, it also acknowledges that compliance with existing laws provides a defense
against claims of negligence or harm. The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
(2004) ruled that compliance with environmental standards is crucial but does not eliminate
accountability if harm occurs.

5. Causation and Responsibility

While the unfortunate incident involving fumes from the factory raises valid concerns, it is
crucial to establish a clear causal link between the factory's operations and health impacts on
workers. In legal terms, liability often hinges on proving causation; without definitive evidence
that Mr. Bhawar Lal's factory was solely responsible for the health issues reported, attributing
blame may be premature. The court in K.K. Verma vs. State of Maharashtra (2011)
emphasized that liability must be proven beyond mere speculation.

6. Community Engagement and Transparency

The criticisms regarding inadequate public consultation can be countered by emphasizing Mr.
Bhawar Lal’s efforts to engage with local communities through employment opportunities and
philanthropic initiatives such as teaching centers for underprivileged youth. The principle of
public participation in environmental governance is crucial; however, it is also essential to
recognize attempts made toward community engagement as a positive step in balancing
economic activity with social responsibility.

In summary, while concerns regarding environmental impacts are valid and must be addressed
seriously, it is essential to recognize the broader context in which Mr. Bhawar Lal operates his
business. The legal framework supports both the Right to Livelihood and sustainable
development principles that promote economic growth while protecting environmental integrity.
 3. Whether Mr. Bhawar Lal was going against the cannons of Environment
Protection Act, 1986 and environmental laws of the Republic of Indicia?

(FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER)

1. Violation of Section 7 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986

Under Section 7 of the Environment Protection Act, industries are prohibited from emitting
pollutants in excess of the prescribed standards. The factory, by discharging Hydrogen Fluoride,
has exceeded these limits, contributing to air pollution and serious health issues. This violation of
statutory norms makes the factory liable for penal action under Section 15 of the Act.
- Case Law: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak case) upheld the principle
of strict liability for industries causing environmental damage. The petitioners argue that the
factory must be held accountable under a similar principle.

2. Failure to Conduct Adequate Public Consultation

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification requires meaningful public
consultation with affected communities before clearances are granted. In this case, the
consultation process was flawed as local residents, including indigenous populations, were
neither properly informed nor consulted in the vernacular language. This violates the principle of
environmental justice and transparency as laid down in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V.
Nayudu (1999), where public participation in environmental decision-making was emphasized.
- Case Law: The principle of "free, prior, and informed consent" was reaffirmed in Orissa
Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013).

3. Right to Life and a Healthy Environment under Article 21

The petitioner contends that the factory’s actions infringe on the right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution, which has been interpreted to include the right to a healthy environment. The
pollution caused by the factory, leading to health hazards and environmental degradation,
violates this fundamental right, as recognized in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), which
held that the right to pollution-free air is part of the right to life.
- Case Law: In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Court recognized
that environmental pollution violates the right to life under Article 21.
4. Negligence in Maintaining Safety Standards
The petitioner argues that the factory failed to maintain proper safety protocols, leading
to the emission of hazardous chemicals like Hydrogen Fluoride. The resulting health
problems, including workers vomiting blood and the deaths of three individuals,
demonstrate gross negligence. The factory's failure to safeguard against foreseeable harm
invokes the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), making them strictly liable for the
damage caused.
- Case Law: Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Tragedy case) established
that industries must maintain the highest safety standards, especially when dealing with
hazardous substances.

5. Corruption and Bribery in Environmental Clearances

The petitioner raises serious allegations that the factory obtained environmental
clearances through corrupt practices, including bribery of local environmental officials.
This calls into question the validity of the clearances granted. The factory’s operations
should be suspended pending an independent investigation into these allegations, as
improper clearance renders the factory’s operations illegal.
- Case Law: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) (2G
Spectrum case) highlighted that any action tainted by corruption is subject to legal review
and can be set aside.

6. Violation of Hazardous Waste Management Rules

The factory has violated the Hazardous Waste Management Rules by failing to properly
manage and dispose of toxic waste, particularly Hydrogen Fluoride. The improper
disposal of hazardous chemicals has resulted in contamination of the local soil and water,
causing long-term environmental damage.
- Case Law: Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India (2005) reaffirmed the
principle that industries must comply with hazardous waste management regulations to
prevent environmental degradation.
7. Ecological Damage and Environmental Restoration
The factory’s activities have caused long-term ecological damage, including soil
degradation, air pollution, and loss of biodiversity. The petitioner seeks an order for the
factory to not only cease operations but also to undertake environmental restoration
efforts. The Polluter Pays Principle laid down in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
v. Union of India (1996) requires the polluter to bear the costs of restoring the
environment.
- Case Law: The Polluter Pays Principle has been reaffirmed in multiple cases,
including T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2006).
(FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT)

1. Compliance with the Environment Protection Act, 1986

The factory has obtained all necessary environmental clearances as required under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986. The factory’s operations are regularly monitored by
the State Pollution Control Board, and no violations have been recorded during
inspections. In the absence of evidence showing that pollution levels exceed permissible
limits, the factory cannot be held liable for environmental violations.
- Case Law: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) affirmed that once
environmental clearances are obtained following due process, operations cannot be halted
without substantial evidence of violations.

2. No Proven Link Between Emissions and Health Issues

The petitioner has failed to provide direct scientific evidence linking the factory’s
emissions to the workers' health problems. While Hydrogen Fluoride is cited as a cause,
no definitive studies or tests have conclusively established that the factory’s emissions
were responsible for the illnesses. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to
demonstrate causation, which they have not fulfilled.
- Case Law: Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) upheld the need for
scientific evidence before attributing health problems to industrial pollution.

3. Economic Contribution and Right to Livelihood (Article 21)

The factory has provided employment to hundreds of local residents, many of whom are
marginalized and depend on this income for their survival. Shutting down the factory
would result in significant unemployment and violate their right to livelihood under
Article 21, as held in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985). The right to
livelihood is an essential component of the right to life, and economic welfare must be
balanced with environmental concerns.
- Case Law: In Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (2006), the Court
balanced environmental considerations with economic development, allowing the factory
to continue operations with stricter safeguards.
4. Adherence to Environmental Safeguards
The factory has implemented environmental safeguards, including the installation of
pollution control mechanisms and adherence to permissible emission levels. The factory
conducts regular environmental audits and participates in Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) initiatives to improve the local community. These actions demonstrate the
factory’s commitment to minimizing its environmental impact.
- Case Law: Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) supported sustainable
development when industries demonstrated compliance with environmental safeguards.

5. Scientific and Industrial Importance of Products

The factory produces chemicals that are vital for scientific and industrial purposes,
contributing to the nation's growth in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and research.
Disrupting the factory’s operations would have wider negative implications for the
national economy and international collaborations in science and technology.
- Case Law: Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) acknowledged the
importance of balancing environmental regulation with the need for industrial progress.

6. No Legal Basis for Allegations of Corruption

The allegations of bribery and corruption raised by the petitioner are baseless and
speculative. No official investigation has found evidence of corrupt practices in obtaining
environmental clearances. The factory has followed due legal processes in securing
clearances, and these should not be dismissed without proper evidence.
- Case Law: In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli (2007), the
Court held that allegations of corruption must be substantiated with concrete proof before
any action can be taken.

7. Sustainable Development and National Interest

The factory plays a crucial role in sustainable industrial development, which is in line
with the government’s policies on economic liberalization and growth. The Court in
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) emphasized the need to balance
environmental concerns with national development goals, ensuring that industries operate
in a manner that fosters both economic progress and environmental responsibility.
 - Case Law: The principle of sustainable development was recognized in Narmada
Bachao Andolan (2000), where the Court balanced environmental protection with the
need for infrastructure and economic growth.