TEAM CODE - 29R

SHASTRARTH 2025 MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHANSAPURA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATON NO. 143 OF 2025

Shri XYZ & Ors …APPEALANT

Versus

The Union of Indrika …RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATONS

Abbreviatons Full Forms

Ors Others
& And
Hon’ble Hounourable
EIA Environmental Impact Assessments
EIC Economic industrial Corridoor
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Sr. No. Document Referred

1. Environment law by Pitthawala
2. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)
3. Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Union of India (1996)
4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
5. 1) Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)
6. 2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004)
7. A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001)
8. Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India (2002)
9. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present memorial which is a Public Interest Litigation is presented to the Hon’ble High
Court of Jhansapura under Article 226 of the Constituiton of India by the Applicant and seeks
to address the issue of industrial development in an ecologically sensitive area in Jhansapura,
Indrika.

The counsel presents this memorial to the Hon’ble High Court of Jhansapura which the
counsel finds of competent jurisdiction to try and decide on the matter.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Indrika is an emerging industrial country with rich ecosystem. The Eastern Industrial
Corridor (EIC) is a flagship development initiative undertaken by the Union Government
of Indrika to create industrial parks across states.
 Among the states participating, one is Jhansapura, which has earmarked an area near the
Chandrapura Wetlands, a protected wetland, for the establishment of a significant
industrial hub. The Wetlands are renowned for their ecological significance as a
biodiversity hotspot.
 Home to various species of migratory birds, diverse fish, and serve as an essential water
source for agriculture. These wetlands are protected under Article 48A and the
Environment Protection Act, 1986.
 The state government emphasizes the potential economic benefits of the project, as it will
create 15,000 jobs, reduce unemployment, and stimulate economic.
 The Union Government, supporting the project, has assured that industries operating
within the hub will adhere to strict environmental compliance measures to mitigate any
damage.
 environmentalists have raised serious concerns about the adverse ecological impact of
the project. They argue that the industrial expansion poses a threat to the fragile
ecosystem of the wetlands, leading to endangerment of migratory bird species, depletion
of fish populations, and disruption of water critical to agriculture.
 Multiple independent environmental studies corroborate these concerns, warning of
irreversible damage to the wetland ecosystem should the project proceed.
 The controversy has culminated in the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the
High Court. The petitioners contend that the establishment of the industrial hub violates
constitutional mandates relating to environmental protection, particularly under Article
48A, and Article 51A(g)They also argue that the principles of sustainable development
and intergenerational equity, enshrined in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, are being
undermined.
 The respondents,assert that socio-economic development and environmental protection
can be balanced through technological solutions and stringent compliance with
environmental regulations.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the establishment of the industrial hub violates the constitutional environmental
protection mandates under Article 48Aand Article 51A(g).

2. Whether balancing socio-economic development with environmental protection creates

constitutional tensions.

3. Whether sustainable development principles can be enforced through judicial review

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1 .

The answer of this question will be negative. The counsel will prove that creating industrial hub
will not violate any article in constitution but will be creating the employment and helps to
develop the state.

Issue 2 .

Environmental protection and economic development are not rivals of each other. In modern
democratic state both can be achieved simultaneously/Harmoniously.Article 21 Guarantees the
right to life, which includes the right to a healthy environment. Economical development and
environmental development are seems to be in conflict with each other but is this not a case that
one can be achieved in presence of other.

Issue 3 .

The judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing sustainable development principles through judicial
review. However, courts must exercise restraint and respect the State's policy decisions,
especially in matters involving economic development.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

May it please your lordship -

Addressing the issues in an elaborate manner;

Issue no. (1) - Whether the establishment of the industrial hub violates the constitutional
environmental protection mandates under Article 48A and Article 51A(g).

The establishment of the industrial hub does not violate Article 48A or Article 51A(g) because
the State will take adequate measures to ensure environmental protection. The project includes
strict environmental compliance measures to mitigate potential ecological damage.The State is
fulfilling its duty under Article 48A by balancing economic development with environmental
protection. The industrial hub is designed to minimize its ecological footprint through advanced
technology and sustainable practices.The fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) is not absolute
and must be balanced with the State's obligation to promote socio-economic development. The
industrial hub will create jobs, reduce unemployment, and stimulate economic activity, which are
essential for the welfare of the people. They both are not rivals of each other . Economical
development and environmental protection should go hand in hand . Both are very important for
man kind .

The State is adhering to the principle of sustainable development, which allows for economic
growth while ensuring environmental protection. The industrial hub is a step toward achieving
this balance.

Precautionary Principle

It is a prerequisite to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and implemented

measures to address potential environmental risks. This demonstrates compliance with the
precautionary principle. As it is already clear that, our industrial hub will not directly affect
Chandrapura wetlands, as the land allocated for industrial hub is near the chandrapura wetlands
there will be no industry on exact place of Chandrapura wetlands.

We already satisfy the state and union government upon this project and union government is
supporting us this shows that the project of industrial hub will be created. The industrial hub will
adhere to follow the standards set in environment protection act 1986 and and environmental
protection rules 1986 , rule no 3 and schedule 1 to 6 .

1. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

The Supreme Court held that large-scale development projects, such as dams, are necessary for
economic growth and can be undertaken if adequate environmental safeguards are in place. The
Court emphasized the importance of balancing development with environmental protection.
2. Tata Iron and Steel Co. v. Union of India (1996)
The Court upheld the establishment of industrial projects, stating that economic development is
essential for national progress. The Court noted that environmental concerns can be addressed
through regulatory measures and technological solutions.

3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

The Court recognized that industries must comply with environmental regulations but also
acknowledged the importance of industrial growth for economic development.The industry hub
will follow if any stringent conditions wants to apply by court .

Issue no. (2) - Whether balancing socio-economic development with environmental protection
creates constitutional tensions.

The answer is of this question will be in negative. The Constitution envisions a balance between
socio-economic development and environmental protection. The State is not required to prioritize
one over the other but must strive to achieve both objectives simultaneously. Both are required to
smooth development of mankind. The industrial hub is a necessary step toward addressing
unemployment and underdevelopment in Jhansapura. The State has a constitutional obligation
to promote the welfare of its citizens, which includes creating economic opportunities. The State
will implement technological solutions and stringent environmental regulations to ensure that the
industrial hub does not harm the Chandrapura Wetlands. This demonstrates a commitment to
balancing development with environmental protection.

Principle of Harmonious Construction

The Constitution must be interpreted in a manner that harmonizes conflicting interests. The
State's duty to promote socio-economic development under Article 38 (welfare state) and Article
39 (economic justice) must be balanced with its duty to protect the environment under Article
48A.

Courts have consistently upheld the principle that economic development and environmental
protection are not mutually exclusive but can coexist through proper planning and regulation.

2) Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)

The Supreme Court allowed mining activities to continue in ecologically sensitive areas, subject
to strict environmental regulations. The Court emphasized the need to balance economic
development with environmental protection.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004)

The Court upheld the construction of the Delhi Metro, recognizing its importance for economic
development while ensuring that environmental concerns were addressed through mitigation
measures.

3. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (2001)

The Court emphasized that environmental protection and economic development can coexist if
proper safeguards are implemented.
Issue no. (3) - Whether sustainable development principles can be enforced through judicial
review.

The judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing sustainable development principles through judicial
review. However, courts must exercise restraint and respect the State's policy decisions,
especially in matters involving economic development. The State has the expertise and resources
to assess the environmental and economic impacts of development projects. Courts should not
interfere unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

In this case, the State has demonstrated its commitment to sustainable development by
implementing environmental safeguards and compliance measures. Judicial intervention is
unnecessary and would undermine the State's efforts to promote economic growth.

The Constitution mandates a separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature, and
executive. Courts must respect the State's policy decisions and avoid overstepping their
jurisdiction. Courts should exercise restraint in matters involving economic policy and
development, as these decisions are best left to the elected government.

1. Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India (2002)

The Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere with economic policy decisions unless
they are arbitrary or violate constitutional provisions. The Court emphasized the importance of
judicial restraint in matters of economic development.

2. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

The Court upheld the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, stating that courts should not
second-guess policy decisions unless there is a clear violation of the law.

3.Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

The Court held that judicial review of administrative decisions should be limited to ensuring that
the decision-making process is fair and reasonable. Courts should not substitute their judgment
for that of the executive.
 PRAYER

The counsel humbly seeks that this Hon’ble Court shall declare the establishment of the industrial
hub near Chandrapura, as essential for the population as it will generate large-scale employment
and bring about major development in the region.

The Respondant respectfully requests the following from the Honorable Court to kindly :-

1) Allow the establishment of the industrial hub in Chandrapra region of Jhansapura.

2) Suggest the concerned authority to practice sustainable development and construction, to

compensate or provide relief for whatsoever loss of that sensitive environment.

3) Any other remedy deemed just and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court .