MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No Content Page No.

1. List of Abbrevia ons 02

2. Index of Authori es 04

3. Statement of Facts 06

4. Statement of Issues 08

5. Summary of Arguments 09

6. Arguments Advanced 14

7. Prayer 22

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

% Percentage

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R All India Reporter

Edn Edi on

Govt. Government

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ibid Same as immediately above

ILR Bharatam Law Review

J. Jus ce

MP Member of the Parliament

Mad Madras

MANU Manupatra

No. Number

PIL Public Interest Li ga on

Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited

Pg. Page

Ors. Others

Rep. Represented

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

Supra Men oned before

Suppl. Supplementary

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

UOI Union of India

U.P U ar Pradesh

u/ Under

SOP Standard Opera ng Procedure

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
1. Cons tu on of India , 1950
2. The Bhar ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. Water (Preven on and Control of Pollu on) Act, 1974
4. The Environment (Protec on) Act, 1986
5. The Na onal Green Tribunal Act, 2010
BOOKS:
1. Dr. D.D. Basu, Commentary on Cons tu on of India , (8th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2010).
2. Dr. J. N. Pandey, The cons tu on Law of India , (52nd ed. 2016)
3. KD Gaur, The India Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd.,2016)
4. MP Jain, India Cons tu onal Law, ( 7th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
5. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The India Penal Code, (33rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
6. Tripathi SC, Environmental Law: 5th Edn (Central Law Publica ons, Allahabad 2012)
CASES:

1. Vellore Ci zens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India , 1996

2. Shri K. Jayaram & Others v. Bangalore Development Authority & Others (2021)
3. State of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S and Ors (2008),
4. Pondicherry Paper Ltd v Central Board for Preven on and Control of Water Pollu on
[1978] Cri MP 4662 (MHC)
5. SP Gupta v President of India & Ors [1982] AIR 147 (SC)
6. Chhetriya Pardushan Muk Sangharsh Sami vs State of U.P 1990.

LEGAL DATABASES:

1. India Kanoon
2. SCC Online
3. Manupatra

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

ARTICLE 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

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

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue direc ons or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibi on, quo warranto and cer orari, 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 clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdic on all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this ar cle shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Cons tu on.

32A. [Cons tu onal validity of State laws not to be considered in proceedings under ar cle 32.]
Rep. by the Cons tu on (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 3 (w.e.f. 13-4-1978)

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Environment Guardians Society v. State of U arakhand & Ors.

The Republic of India is a democra c na on with a wri en Cons tu on that guarantees its ci zens
fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of expression, and the right to life
and personal liberty. Over the years, India has enacted several progressive laws aimed at
addressing various issues including Environmental concerns. The Gavya River, flowing from the
Sumalayan Mountains to the Bay of Tengal, has been a source of life, faith, and culture for
centuries. However, in the past few decades, pollu on levels in the river have reached alarming
levels due to untreated industrial effluents, domes c sewage, and indiscriminate dumping of
waste. The holy city of Devdwar, known for its spiritual significance and a star ng point of the
Gavya’s plains journey, has become a hotspot for pollu on, par cularly from pilgrimage ac vi es
and the opera ons of industrial units.

In 2023, residents of Devdwar reported that the river water turned murky and foul-smelling for
weeks. Thousands of fish and other aqua c species were found dead along the banks.
Environmental tes ng revealed dangerously high levels of heavy metals like chromium and lead,
toxic chemicals, and untreated sewage in the river water. A public outcry followed, with local
communi es, environmental groups, and even religious leaders demanding immediate ac on.

The inves ga on revealed two primary causes: An industrial estate located 10 kilometers
upstream from Devdwar housed chemical factories, paper mills, and dyeing units. Several units
were found opera ng without proper effluent treatment plants (ETPs) or bypassing them
altogether, directly discharging untreated waste into the Gavya and The Devdwar Municipal
Corpora on’s sewage treatment plants (STPs) were running far below capacity due to poor
maintenance, allowing untreated sewage from the growing popula on and pilgrims to flow into
the river.

An environmental NGO, Environment Guardians Society, filed a writ pe on in the Supreme Court
under Ar cle 32 of the Cons tu on, claiming that the pollu on of the Gavya River was a direct
viola on of ci zens' fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment under Ar cle 21. The
pe on also alleged that the state authori es and pollu ng industries had failed to uphold their
cons tu onal and statutory obliga ons to protect the environment.

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DISECTION OF THE PROBLEM

Sr. No Description Remark

The Republic of India is a democratic nation with a written
Constitution that guarantees its citizens fundamental rights, including
1 Information
the right to equality, freedom of expression, and the right to life and
personal liberty.
Over the years, India has enacted several progressive laws aimed at
2 Information
addressing various issues including Environmental concerns.
The Gavya River, flowing from the Sumalayan Mountains to the Bay
3 Information
of Tengal, has been a source of life, faith, and culture for centuries.
However, in the past few decades, pollution levels in the river have
4 reached alarming levels due to untreated industrial effluents, Allegation
domestic sewage, and indiscriminate dumping of waste.
The holy city of Devdwar, known for its spiritual significance and a
5 starting point of the Gavya’s plains journey, has become a hotspot Allegation
for pollution, particularly from pilgrimage activities and the
operations of industrial units.
In 2023, residents of Devdwar reported that the river water turned
6 Allegation
murky and foul-smelling for weeks.
Thousands of fish and other aquatic species were found dead along
the banks. Environmental testing revealed dangerously high levels of
7 Allegation
heavy metals like chromium and lead, toxic chemicals, and untreated
sewage in the river water.
A public outcry followed, with local communities, environmental
8
groups, and even religious leaders demanding immediate action. Allegation
The investigation revealed two primary causes: An industrial estate
Investigation
9 located 10 kilometers upstream from Devdwar housed chemical
Report
factories, paper mills, and dyeing units.
Several units were found operating without proper effluent treatment
plants (ETPs) or bypassing them altogether, directly discharging
untreated waste into the Gavya and The Devdwar Municipal Investigation
10
Corporation’s sewage treatment plants (STPs) were running far below Report
capacity due to poor maintenance, allowing untreated sewage from
the growing population and pilgrims to flow into the river.
An environmental NGO, Environment Guardians Society, filed a writ
petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution,
11 claiming that the pollution of the Gavya River was a direct violation Writ Petition
of citizens' fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment
under Article 21.
The petition also alleged that the state authorities and polluting
12 industries had failed to uphold their constitutional and statutory Allegation
obligations to protect the environment.
7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Supreme court can dismiss the writ pe on filed under the Ar cle 32?**

2. Whether the pollu on of the Gavya River cons tutes a viola on of the fundamental right
to life under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on?

3. Whether the pollu ng industries should be held liable for compensa ng the
environmental and health damages caused by their discharge?

4. Whether the State of U arakhand and the Devdwar Municipal Corpora on failed in their
statutory duty under Ar cle 48A of the Cons tu on and the Water Act, 1974, to protect
and improve the environment?

5. Whether The Union government or The State Government is an appropriate party

regarding the to protect and improve the environment.

6. Whether An environmental NGO, Environment Guardians Society has locus Standi for
filling the Writ Petition.

7. What are the parameters for acceptable level of water pollu on.

8. Who is the competent authority to cer fy that the water is polluted.

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Supreme court can dismiss the writ pe on filed under the
Ar cle 32.
It is humbly submi ed that, the nature of Writ Jurisdic on provided under Ar cle 32 is
discre onary. We request the supreme court to dismiss a writ pe on on the grounds of

A. Misrepresenta on of facts
From the face of the plaint, it appears that the pe oner has commi ed a
substan al misrepresenta on of key facts
i. There are no complain filled from the residents of Devdwar that the river water
turned murky and there is foul-smelling.
ii. There is no incidence where thousands of fish and other aqua c species were
found dead along the banks.
iii. There are no test reports which reveal dangerously high levels of heavy metals
like chromium and lead, toxic chemicals, and untreated sewage in the river water.
iv. There was no reported public outcry and no demand of any ac on from local
communi es, environmental groups, and even religious leaders.
v. There is no inves ga on carried out by an authorized agency.
vi. The report produced are inaccurate and in correct.
vii. There are no industries opera ng in Devdwar which produce any harmful
chemicals
viii. All units are opera ng with proper effluent treatment plants (ETPs) there is no
bypassing of Effluent treatment plant.
ix. There is no direct discharg of untreated waste into the Gavya in Devdwar.
x. The Devdwar Municipal Corpora on’s sewage treatment plants (STPs) are
maintenance regularly and are running to the full capacity.

B. Availability of alterna ve remedy

If the Pe oner was agreed in any way, they has lots of alterna ve Remedies
available under different statutes but has chosen to file a writ pe on to the
supreme court. If the pe oner has another remedy, he must seek it rather than
filing a writ pe on.

List of alterna ve remedies are

i. Complain to Devidwar Municipality
ii. Complain to U amkhand Pollu on Control Board

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

iii. Complain to Na onal Mission for Clean Ganga Ministry of Jal Shak
(Department of Water Resources,River Development & Ganga Rejuvena on)
Government of India Grievance with regards to Sewage/Effluent and Solid
Waste.
iv. Complain to Na onal Green Tribunal (NGT)
v. Na onal Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA)
vi. State Ganga River Conserva on Authori es (SGRCAs)
vii. Provisions under The Bhar ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 i.e Sec on 270, Sec on
279, Sec on 280 and Sec on 292

2. Whether the pollu on of the Gavya River cons tutes a viola on of the
fundamental right to life under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on?
It is humbly submi ed that, the provisions for Right for clean water and environment is
already covered under

i. The Cons tu on of India Ar cles 48A and 51 A (g).

ii. The Bhar ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
iii. Water (Preven on and Control of Pollu on) Act, 1974 and
iv. The Na onal Green Tribunal Act, 2010
v. Under the The Environment (Protec on) Act, 1986
1. Clean and Healthy environment is already a
a) Human right
b) Cons tu onal right
c) Fundamental duty
It cannot be a Fundamental right.
2. For the right to be a fundamental right
a) It should be enforceable.
b) The remedies should be defined.
c) The remedies should not be available under any other statue.
3. Right to life isn‘t absolute right .
4. To discourage protracted li ga on, the provisions should be restricted to Cons tu onal
right.
5. The environmental laws are strictly enforced in the country declaring the right to healthy
environment will result in reducing the importance of all the exis ng environmental
laws,
6. The Clean and healthy environment should be a enforceable fundamental duty instead
of fundamental right.

10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. Whether the pollu ng industries should be held liable for compensa ng

the environmental and health damages caused by their discharge?
Most of the important principles where by the liability of the pollu ng agency can be
defined are.

A. Sustainable development
The objec ve of sustainable development is to fulfil the current needs of the people
without diminishing the ability of future genera ons to get access to natural resources.

B. Precau onary Principle

This principle advocates that measures for preven ng environmental degrada on should
be implemented when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage even though
the threat lacks scien fic certainty. It is based on the principle that it is be er to have
errors on the side of cau on.

C. Polluter Pays Principle

The polluter pays principle states that the undertakings have to pay financial costs for
preven ng or remedying the damages caused to the environment by the pollu on
created by those undertakings.

The Above 3 Principals can be implemented only if:

i. The provisions of The Environment (Protec on) Act, 1986 as per sec on 11
should be followed.
ii. There should be admissible evidence to prove that there is water pollu on done
by the party.

As there are no admissible evidences to prove the allega ons made by the pe oner we
humbly submit that industries of Devdwar should be held liable for compensa ng

4. Whether the State of U amkhand and the Devdwar Municipal Corpora on

failed in their statutory duty under Ar cle 48A of the Cons tu on and the
Water Act, 1974, to protect and improve the environment?
It is humbly submi ed that the State of U amkhand and the Devdwar Municipal
Corpora on did not fail to protect and improve the environment under Ar cle 48A of the
Cons tu on and the Water Act, 1974.

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

A. The affidavit By The State of U ramkhand regarding the measures to protect and
improve the Environment.
B. The affidavit By The Municipal corpora on of Devdwar regarding the measures to
protect and improve the Environment.
C. SOP by The Municipal corpora on of Devdwar for the waste water management.

5. Whether The Union government is more appropriate party for the

allega ons regarding the protec on and improve of the environment
involving fundamental rights.
It is humbly submi ed that below authori es are more appropriate party to the suit,
a. Union of Bharatam - As Entry 56 of Union List government is authorized to regulate
and develop inter-state rivers.
b. Namami Gange Programme in 2014-15 Republic of Bharatam.
c. Na onal Mission for Clean Ganga(NMCG)
d. Atal Mission for Rejuvena on & Urban Transforma on (AMRUT)

Are more appropriate par es to the suit. State of U amkhand and the Devdwar Municipal
Corpora on are inappropriate par es to the suit.

6. Whether An environmental NGO, Environment Guardians Society has locus

Standi for filling the Writ Petition.
The Supreme Court has declared that any member of the public ac ng Bonafide can
maintain an ac on for redress where a public wrong or injury is caused by the state.

It is significant to note that such a member of the public may approach the court on behalf
of a person(s) who has been injured and he should act Bonafide.

The NGO, Environment Guardians has filed a writ petition based on

a. Incomplete facts
b. False inves ga on reports.
c. Without scien fic study and expert commi ee evalua on
d. Without seeking any available remedies.

We humbly submit that, as the Act of NGO Environment Guardians Society is not
Bonafide it does not have locus Standi for filling the Writ Petition

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

9. What are the parameters for un acceptable level of water pollu on.
The Central Government has published the Primary Water Quality Criteria for Bathing
Waters in Official Gaze e REGD. NO. D. L.-33004/99, on September 25, 2000, Sec on 93.

10.Who is the competent authority to cer fy that the water is polluted.

Sec on 12 of The Environment (Protec on) Act, 1986, the Environmental laboratories
no fied by the central government are authorized to carry out the func ons of collec ng
the water samples and tes ng.

11.Where is the procedure for taking the cognizance of offences related to

water pollu on given.
The Environment (Protec on) Act, 1986, Sec on 19 gives the procedure for taking
cognizance of an offence relate to water pollu on.

13
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Supreme court can dismiss the writ pe on filed under the
Ar cle 32.
It is humbly submi ed that, the nature of Writ Jurisdic on provided under Ar cle 32 is
discre onary. There are five important factors for guiding this discre on.

A. Non-filing of the writ in compliance with the court hierarchy

If a person files a writ pe on in the Apex Court and the court dismisses his writ, the
individual cannot file the writ pe on again in another Court. But if a person files a writ
pe on in the high court and the court refuses his pe on, he has the right to appeal
against the decision of the Supreme Court under the principle of Natural Jus ce.

B. Principle of res judicata

Res Judicata is defined under Sec on 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is the La n
phrase for “a ma er decided.” It means that a subsequent suit cannot be filed on the
same cause of ac on and the same dispute by the par es to the suit. The principle of
Res Judicata is based on three maxims:

i. Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same
cause)

ii. Interest republicae ut sit finis li um (it is in the interest of the state that there should
be an end to li ga on)

iii. Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct)

In the case of Daryao And Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others (1961),

The Supreme Court ruled that the principle of res judicata will be applicable and even
though ar cle 32 is a fundamental right, any legal provision that overrides any
fundamental right or any provision under law shall be found uncons tu onal.

C. Misrepresenta on of facts

If the pe oner is found to have commi ed a substan al misrepresenta on of key facts,

the Supreme Court may dismiss the pe on at any stage.

In the case of Shri K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority (2021),

14
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The Supreme Court held that the concealment of key informa on is a misuse of the legal
process, depriving the appellant from the excep onal, equitable, and discre onary relief
from Writ Courts.

D. Availability of alterna ve remedy

If the pe oner has another remedy, he must seek it rather than filing a writ pe on.
In the case of State of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S and Ors (2008),
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the pe oners must seek a suitable alterna ve
remedy before filing a writ case.

E. Inordinate delay

F. Malicious pe on

If the pe on submi ed to the Supreme Court is found to be malicious or fu le, the

Supreme Court may dismiss it under Ar cle 32.
In the case of Shoukat Hussain Guru vs State (Nct) Delhi & Anr (2008)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the writ pe on in because it lacked any ra onal
grounds for it to be issued.

2. Whether the pollu on of the Gavya River cons tutes a viola on of the
fundamental right to life under Ar cle 21 of the Cons tu on?
It is humbly submi ed that, the provisions for Right for clean water and environment is
already covered under

i. The Cons tu on of India Ar cles 48A and 51 A (g).

ii. The Bhar ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
iii. Water (Preven on and Control of Pollu on) Act, 1974 and
iv. The Na onal Green Tribunal Act, 2010

A. Ar cle 48A states “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment
and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”

B. Ar cle 51A(g), it is the duty of every ci zen to preserve and protect the environment. It
states “It shall be the duty of every ci zen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for
living creatures.”

15
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

C. Sec on 279 of the BNS determines that any person who pollutes the water of a public
reservoir is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with a
fine extending to five hundred rupees or both.

D. Sec on 280 of the BNS states any person who pollutes the atmosphere that nega vely
affects the health of people is punishable with a fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees.

E. Sec on 292 of the BNS states that “Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not
otherwise punishable by this code, shall be punished with a fine which may extend to
two hundred rupees.”

F. In 1974, this Act was introduced to control and prevent water pollu on by promo ng
the cleanliness of streams and rivers. Also, it ensures to maintain and restore the
wholesomeness of water for the establishment. The Water (Preven on and Control of
Pollu on) Act prohibits the discharge of effluents into water bodies so as to protect
marine as well as human life. Apart from this, the act allows the establishment of
agencies such as the Central Pollu on Control Board (CPCB) and the State Pollu on
Control Board (SPCB), and powers were given to them so that appropriate ac ons could
be taken to prevent water pollu on.

G. The Na onal Green Tribunal was established under the Na onal Green Tribunal Act of
2010, to quickly resolve cases related to environmental preserva on and protec on as
well as for the conserva on of natural resources.

H. Under the The Environment (Protec on) Act, 1986

Sec on 19 COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence
under this Act except on a complaint made by-- (a) the Central Government or any
authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Government1 , or (b) any person
who has given no ce of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged
offence and of his inten on to make a complaint, to the Central Government or the
authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.

I. Environmental law is a subject of modern jurisprudence where the philosophy Hans

Kelso should be applied i.e there is only Duty and no Right.

With all remedies available there is no need to include the pollu on of the river under
Ar cle 21 of Cons tu on.

16
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. Whether the pollu ng industries should be held liable for compensa ng

the environmental and health damages caused by their discharge?
Most of the important principles in regards to the liability of the pollu ng agency are.

A. Sustainable development
The objec ve of sustainable development is to fulfil the current needs of the people
without diminishing the ability of future genera ons to get access to natural resources.

B. Precau onary Principle

This principle advocates that measures for preven ng environmental degrada on should
be implemented when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage even though
the threat lacks scien fic certainty. It is based on the principle that it is be er to have
errors on the side of cau on.

C. Polluter Pays Principle

The polluter pays principle states that the undertakings have to pay financial costs for
preven ng or remedying the damages caused to the environment by the pollu on
created by those undertakings.

To implement these 3 principles shall be done if the provisions of The Environment

(Protec on) Act, 1986 as per sec on 11 as below.

The Central Government or any officer empowered by it in this behalf, shall have power
to take, for the purpose of analysis, samples of air, water, soil or other substance from
any factory, premises or other place in such manner as may be prescribed.

The result of any analysis of a sample taken under sub-sec on (1) shall not be admissible
in evidence in any legal proceeding unless the provisions of sub-sec ons (3) and (4) are
complied with.

4. Whether the State of U amkhand and the Devdwar Municipal Corpora on

failed in their statutory duty under Ar cle 48A of the Cons tu on and the
Water Act, 1974, to protect and improve the environment?
It is humbly submi ed that the State of U amkhand and the Devdwar Municipal
Corpora on did not fail to protect and improve the environment under Ar cle 48A of the
Cons tu on and the Water Act, 1974.

17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The affidavit By The State of U ramkhand regarding the measures to protect and improve
the Environment.

The affidavit By The Municipal corpora on of Devdwar regarding the measures to protect
and improve the Environment.

SOP by The Municipal corpora on of Devdwar for the waste water management.

5. Whether The Union government or The State Government is an appropriate

party regarding the to protect and improve the environment.
It is humbly submi ed that,
i. Union of Bharatam is a more appropriate party to the suit. As Entry 56 of Union
List government is authorized to regulate and develop inter-state rivers.
ii. Namami Gange Programme in 2014-15 Republic of Bharatam.
iii. Na onal Mission for Clean Ganga(NMCG)
iv. Atal Mission for Rejuvena on & Urban Transforma on (AMRUT)

Are more appropriate par es to the suit.

State of U amkhand and the Devdwar Municipal Corpora on are inappropriate par es to
the suit.

 India water is a State subject but the provisions are quite complicated. The primary entry
in the Cons tu on rela ng to water Entry 17 in the State List. It brings water including
water supplies, irriga on and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and
water power under state list.
 Entry 56 of Union List: The central government is authorized to regulate and develop
inter-state rivers and river valleys as deemed necessary by Parliament for the public
interest. Under Entry 56, Parliament enact the River Boards Act 1956 to the establish River
Boards for inter-State rivers.
 Government of India (GoI) has launched the Namami Gange Programme in 2014-15, to
accomplish the twin objec ves of effec ve abatement of pollu on, conserva on and
rejuvena on of Na onal River Ganga and its tributaries. GoI is supplemen ng the efforts
of the State Governments in addressing the challenges of pollu on of river Ganga and its
tributaries by providing financial and technical assistance under Namami Gange
Programme. The main objec ve of river rejuvena on programme is to meet the primary
water quality criteria for outdoor bathing no fied by Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change (MoEF& CC).

18
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Na onal Mission for Clean Ganga(NMCG) was registered as a society on 12th August
2011 under the Socie es Registra on Act 1860.It acted as implementa on arm of Na onal
Ganga River Basin Authority(NGRBA) which was cons tuted under the provisions of the
Environment (Protec on) Act (EPA),1986. NGRBA has since been dissolved with effect
from the 7th October 2016.
 Sewerage infrastructure is created under programs like Atal Mission for Rejuvena on &
Urban Transforma on (AMRUT) and Smart Ci es Mission of Ministry of Housing & Urban
Affairs.

6. Whether An environmental NGO, Environment Guardians Society has locus

Standi for filling the Writ Petition.
The Supreme Court has declared that any member of the public ac ng Bonafide can
maintain an ac on for redress where a public wrong or injury is caused by the state.

It is significant to note that the court ruled that such a member of the public may approach
the court on behalf of a person(s) who has been injured but is not able to approach the
courts by reason of disabili es like poverty, social or economic hardship.

The NGO, Environment Guardians has filed a writ petition based on

i. Incomplete facts
ii. False inves ga on reports.
iii. Without scien fic study and expert commi ee evalua on
iv. Without seeking any available remedies.

As the Act of NGO Environment Guardians Society is not Bonafide it does not have locus
Standi for filling the Writ Petition

However, it is not to be forgo en that such expansion of locus standi to enable any
member of the public to approach the court to vindicate the public interest is not an
unmixed blessing. The courts have not hesitated to discourage and in fact strongly
deprecate ac ons which are not bona fide.

In the case Chhetriya Pardushan Muk Sangharsh Sami vs State of U.P 1990.

The Supreme Court laid down in unequivocal terms

a. The writ pe on can be filled by any person interested genuinely in the protec on
of the society on behalf of the society or the community.

19
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

b. This weapon as a safeguard must be u lised and invoked by the court with great
circumspec on and cau on.
c. While it is a duty of this court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of
this court to ensure that this weapon … should not be misused or permi ed to be
misused …’.

Raunaq Interna onal Ltd vs I.V R. Construc on Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

The Supreme Court has held that if any developmental project were to be stalled by
reason of any public interest ac on before a court of law and ul mately, it is found that
the ac on is not bona fide, the pe oner would be liable to pay exemplary costs. It can
be seen therefore that while the scope of public interest li ga on is extensive, courts have
taken care to see that it is not abused.

20
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF EVIDENCE
1. The affidavit By The State of U ramkhand regarding the measures to protect and improve
the Environment.
2. The affidavit By The Municipal corpora on of Devdwar regarding the measures to protect
and improve the Environment.
3. SOP by The Municipal corpora on of Devdwar for the waste water management.
4. Gaze e REGD. NO. D. L.-33004/99, on September 25, 2000, Sec on 93.
5. Pollu on assessment report of River Ganga-2013
6. Brief Industrial profile of Devidwar.

21
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

PRAYERS
In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authori es cited, the
Counsel for the Respondent humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court :

1. Dismiss a writ pe on on the grounds of

a. Misrepresenta on of facts
b. Availability of alterna ve remedy
2. Strict rules should be laid down to access if the writ pe on related to environmental
laws can be made admissible.
3. The “Clean and Healthy” should be declared as Enforceable Fundamental duty.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL BE DUTY BOUND AND EVER PRAY.

Date: 11/02/2025
Place: Delhi

Counsel for the Respondents

[Name & Signature]

22