9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETTITION 2025

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

TEAM CODE :07

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: _____/2024

(IN THE MATTER OF WRIT PETITION)

MR. PATIL & ALL INDICA FISHERMEN WELFARE

COMMITEE……………………………………………….… (PETITIONERS )
VERSUS
UNION OF INDICA……….…………………………………(RESPONDENT)

________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 1 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT……………………………………………………….……...……...2
LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………...…...…….……….……4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………….……….…….5
i)TABLE OF CASES ………………………………………………………….…........….…5
ii) STATUTES REFERRED…………………………………………….……….….……...6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………….……….….…….…..7
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………….…………….….……8
ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………….…….…………….………11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………….…………….….……….12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………….……………………….…….……….13

1. THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDICA …………………………………………………………12
1.1Lack Of Locus Standi Of The Petitioners....………………………………………...……12
1.2 No Violation of Specific Fundamental Rights………………….……......……….……...13
1.3 Alternative Remedy Not Exhausted……………………………………....………..…….14

2. THE ORDER ISSUED BY CENTRAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(CCZMP) OF MoEFCC IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID…………………...……16
2.1 Statutory Basis & Constitutional Mandate for the CCZMP Order …………………..….16
2.2 Reasonable Limitations on Fundamental Rights: The Balanced Approach of the CCZMP
Order under Art. 19(6): Addressing Specific Harmful Practices……..……………..………..17
2.3 Application of Principles of Established Environmental Law to the Ratangad &

Nova ……………………………………………………………..……………….
…………..18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 2 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

3. THE ENFORCEMENT OF BANS ON FISHING EQUIPMENT CARRYING

CULTURAL PRACTICES UNDER COMMITTEE GUIDELINES IS UNFAIR,
DISCRIMINATORY AND INSULT TOWARDS THE CUSTOMARY CULTURAL
RIGHTS OF THE FISHING COMMUNITY…………………………………………….20
3.1 The CCZMP Action is Lawful, Justified, & Environmentally Necessary……………….20
3.2 The Restrictions are just, Proportionate, & Non-Discriminatory…………………………
21

3.3 The CCZMP Notice Obtains a Constitutional Equilibrium Between Environment

Protection & Cultural
Rights……………………………………………………………………………..22

3.4 The Doctrine Of Sustainable Development Legitimizes The CCZMP Regulation

Model...22

3.5 Principles of Natural Justice Were Enshrined In Issuing The CCZMP

Notification……....23

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………..24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 3 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Article Art.

And &

Supreme Court SC

Environmental Protection Act EPA

All India Reporter AIR

Supreme Court Cases SCC

Section Sec.

Honourable Hon’ble

Central Coastal Management Plan CCZMP

Others Ors.

Government Govt.

Versus V.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 4 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

Another Anr

National Green Tribunal NGT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1.STATUTES REFERRED:
I. The Constitution of India, 1950
II. Environmental Protection Act, 1986
III. Indian Biodiversity Act, 2002
IV. CRZ Notification, 2019
V. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
2. TABLE OF CASES

Sr. Case Law Citation Page No.

No
.
1 Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti 1990 AIR 2060
Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar 1990 SCR(3) 739 1990 12
Pradesh

2 Haji Bashir Ahmed v. UOI & Gadda

Venkateshwara Rao v. Govt of Andhra 1676 AIR 578 12
Pradesh 1976 SCR (3)58

3 Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 12

4
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of Bengal SCR 1962 SUPP. (3) S.C.R. 1 13

5 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75)

Sarkar 13

6
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1960 SC 430) 13

7 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 5 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

(1987) 4 SCC 463 14

8 State of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya 2008 AIR SCW 6086 14
Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S & Ors.
9 Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog (2012) 8 SCC 326 14
Sangathan v. Union of India
10 Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212 16
11 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625 17

12 Rural Litigation & Entitlement (1985) 2 SCC 431 17

Kendra v. State of U.P

13 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 17

14 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 17

15 Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise (AIR 1954 SC 220)
Commissioner 17

16 A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. (1999) 2 SCC 718 18

M.V. Nayudu
17 Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. (1996) 5 SCC 647
Union of India 18

18 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 18

19 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of (2000) 10 SCC 664 18

India
20 Intellectual Forum, Tirupati v. State of (2006) 3 SCC 549 19
A.P.
21 Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. (2014) 7 SCC 547
Nagaraja 22

22 Rural Litigation & Entitlement [AIR 1988 SC 2187] 21

Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
23 Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The 1987 AIR 1109 22
State of West Bengal & Ors. (1987) 1987 SCR (2) 223
24 Noise Pollution v. Union of India &
Sundaram v. State of Rajasthan AIR2005SC3136 22

25 Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.

& Bihar School Examination Board v. 1970 AIR 1269 23
Subhas Chandra Sinha

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 6 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has filed this writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
for the violation of fundamental rights enumerated part – III of the Constitution.

The Respondent maintains that no violation of rights has taken place.

Therefore, this Hon’ble Court need not entertain its jurisdiction in this writ petition.

The Respondent would like to humbly submit that this Public Interest Litigation for the
appeal is not maintainable

Article 32 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: “32. Remedies for
enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Hon’ble SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.

(2) The Hon’ble SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

It is Humbly submitted that; the respondent has appeared before this Hon’ble Court in
response to the notice sent to respondent with regard to the writ petition filed by the
petitioner under article of the constitution of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 7 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Indica is country, attained Independence in 1947. The Constitution of
Indica, was adopted & enacted by the Constituent Assembly of Indica on January 26, 1950.
Prominence was put on civil & political rights. These rights were included as enforceable
rights under Part-III of the Constitution as "Fundamental Rights".

2. The Republic of Indica is a Democratic, Socialist, Secular, Sovereign, & Republic country
that upholds the principles of Justice, Equity, & Liberty while ensuring the same for its
citizens. It is a largest democratic state in the world & has a population of approximately 1.5
billion people. Indica has adopted a democratic system based on the principle of 'for the
people, by the people, & of the people.' It follows a quasi-federal system of governance.The
division of power between the Central & State Governments is the core of the federal
constitution.

3. Indica has an extensive coastline of 7,516.6 kilometres, which is a vital source of

livelihood for the 'Fisherman Community’. comprising approximately 8.5% of the country's
total population. The Central Govt. under authority of EPA, 1986 forms a committee to
regulates an affair related to Coastal line i.e. Central Coastal Zone Management Plan
(CCZMP). The CCZMP to combat pollution, monitors waste discharge, enforces effluent
treatment standards, restricts hazardous dumping, & collaborates with pollution control
boards. Additionally, it restores mangroves & marine habitats, ensuring the sustainability of
coastal ecosystems.

4. The Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Authority, established under the EPAt, 1986. It
demarcates CRZ-I to CRZ-IV areas, restricts harmful activities such as industrial discharge,
land reclamation, & commercial aquaculture, & enforces the No Development Zone (NDZ)
in ecologically sensitive regions.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 8 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

5. The coastal communities in the states of Saurashtra & Nova have long depended on
fishing, not just as a means of livelihood but also as a vital cultural tradition. In the Ratangad
district, located at Saurashtra’s southern border with Nova, nearly 70% of the population
relies on the sea for their livelihood through traditional fishing practices that have been
passed down through generations.

6.However, following a survey conducted on February 10, 2024, the CCZMP, under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986, reported that Ratangad & parts of Nova's Senwadi district
were among the most polluted coastal regions. The findings highlighted a steep decline in
fish populations, including endangered species, attributing the damage to harmful fishing
techniques & long-standing cultural practices of the local communities.

7. Based on the survey findings & approval by the Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change (MoEFCC), the CCZMP issued a notification (Order No. CCZMP/2023-
24/112 dated March 1, 2024) declaring the coastal line of District Ratangad in Saurashtra &
certain villages, including Sargoan & Vasipur in Senwadi district of Nova, as a Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ - I). “The notification prohibited use, manufacturing & assembling of
certain types of fishing nets, namely, purse seines, ring seines, pelagic & mid-water trawls for
fishing in mentioned area & customary cultural practices in these areas are only allowed with
prior permission & according to measures that will be prescribed by the CCZMP.”

8. In response to the CCZMP order, Mr. Patil, a fisherman from the Ratangad district in
Saurashtra, filed a petition before the Hon’ble SC of Indica on March 13, 2024, under Art. 32
of the Constitution. He alleged that the order infringed upon the fundamental rights of the
Fisherman Community—specifically Art. 14, 19, 21, & their constitutionally protected
cultural rights—arguing that the directive was arbitrary & unjust.

9. As the issue gained traction, several other affected individuals approached the All-Indica
Fisherman Welfare Committee (AIFWC), contending that the CCZMP order deprived them
of their livelihood & professional rights. Taking cognizance of their concerns, the AIFWC
filed an independent petition before the SC, challenging the constitutional validity of the
order & seeking its annulment in the interest of protecting the rights of the Fisherman
Community.

10. The findings of the survey are as follows:- Fishing by local distributors by use of certain
types of fishing nets, namely, purse seines, ring seines, pelagic & mid-water trawls for
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 9 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

fishing, harming water creatures, leading to declining rare species of fishes & polluting
coastal eco system by leaving manufacturing & assembling waste of the same. Regular
conduct of customary cultural practices polluting coastal lines nearby mentioned areas where
peoples from local region leave their waste materials in coastal premises & in sea water
during the transition of the cultural practices.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica

maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica?

2. Is the order issued by Central Coastal Zone Management Plan (CCZMP) of

MoEFCC, Constitutionally Valid?

3. Is the enforcement of bans on fishing equipment and carrying cultural practices

under committee guidelines is fair, non-discriminatory, and respectful of the customary
cultural rights of the fishing community?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 10 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.Is the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica
maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica?

The counsel on behalf of respondent respectfully submits that the writ petition filed under
Art. 32 is not maintainable, since no fundamental rights have been violated. Petitioners have
no locus standi & cannot demonstrate violation of their rights or genuine grievance. The
order of CCZMP establishes reasonable classification based on scientific conclusions with
rational nexus to protection of environment. It places legitimate restrictions under Art. 19(6)
in public interest but in fact serves to protect Art. 21 rights to sustainable living. Alternative
remedies through the NGT & CCZMP grievance mechanisms remain unexplored, making
this petition premature.

2. Is the order issued by Central Coastal Zone Management Plan (CCZMP) of

MoEFCC, Constitutionally Valid?

The counsel on behalf of respondent humbly & respectfully contends that the CCZMP order
is legally valid, gaining authority from Sec.3 of the EPA & satisfying Art. 48A obligations. It
safeguards but does not infringe Art. 21 rights by maintaining the marine environment for
future & current generations. The order places reasonable restrictions allowable under Art.
19(6) founded on scientific data of environmental damage. It enforces established
environmental principles such as the Precautionary Principle & Public Trust Doctrine. The
controlled permission system for cultural activities harmonizes environmental protection &
cultural rights.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 11 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

3. Is the enforcement of bans on fishing equipment & carrying cultural practices under
committee guidelines is fair, non-discriminatory, & respectful of the customary cultural
rights of the fishing community?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent respectfully & humbly submits that the CCZMP
controls on cultural practice & fishing gear are necessary, proportionate, & non-
discriminatory measures in environmental terms. The regulations create a permission regime
for cultural use rather than absolute prohibition, achieving constitutional proportionality. The
provisions are applied across the board to zones without regard to social factors, up to Art. 14
standards. The regulatory approach is in harmony with sustainable development &
intergenerational equity principles, preserving marine resources for future generations.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDICA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The counsel on behalf of the respondent contends that there is no infringement of

fundamental rights, emphasizing that Art. 32 comes into play only when there is a clear
violation of constitutional rights. Alternative remedies in this case have also not been
pursued.

Furthermore, Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1

was a case that highlighted the fact that Art. 32 as a protection measure must be resorted to &
called upon by the Court with a lot of caution & prudence. Though it is the responsibility of
this Court to enforce basic rights, it is also the responsibility of this Court to see that this
weapon under Art. 32 should not be abused or allowed to be abused.

Similarly, In the present case, the Order made by the CCZMP only controls some fishing
activities by banning specific types of fishing nets & demanding prior sanction for cultural
practices in specific areas. This control measure was taken under legitimate environmental
considerations after a thorough survey that showed high levels of pollution & depleting fish
stock in the coastal areas of District Ratangad & some villages in Senwadi district.

1
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 AIR 2060
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 12 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

1.1 LACK OF LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONERS

1.1.1 The Petitioners, have no locus standi to file this petition under Art. 32. The SC has,
while liberalizing the rule of locus standi in public interest litigations, always held that the
petitioner must establish a sufficient interest in the subject matter & an honest grievance.
Secondly, the SC also underlined the fact that locus standi depends on a person's rights
having been breached2 Haji Bashir Ahmed v. UOI & Gadda Venkateshwara Rao v. Govt of
Andhra Pradesh.

1.1.2. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary3, the Hon'ble SC noted that even in public interest
litigation, the Court has to be sure that the petition is not moved for oblique reasons & that
the petitioner is properly interested in the case. The Court has to be convinced that the
petitioner is doing so in good faith & not in order to make money or earn private profit.

1.1.3. In Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of Bengal 4, it made it clear that unless the rights of the
petitioner are violated, the issue of locus standi does not arise. To determine locus standi,
there must be a violation of a fundamental right. Nonetheless, in this case the CCZMP order
does not constitute a general prohibition of fishing but merely controls particular kinds of
fishing nets whose harmful nature has been scientifically established as causing damage to
the marine environment. The Petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence that these
specific fishing practices are necessary to their living or that alternative, sustainable fishing
practices are not within their reach.

1.2 NO VIOLATION OF SPECIFIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

1.2.1 In the present case, the order of CCZMP applies to all people who participate in fishing
in the prescribed areas, regardless of their status, community, or background. The distinction
created by the order is on geographical zones determined through scientific surveys as the
most contaminated with rapidly diminishing fish populations, which forms an intelligible
differentia Art. 14 guarantees that every person shall be treated equally before the law & be
given equal protection of the laws. However, it allows reasonable classification if it is not
arbitrary & is based on valid reasons.

2
Haji Bashir Ahmed v. UOI & Gadda Venkateshwara Rao v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh.
3
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305
4
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of Bengal SCR 1962 SUPP. (3) S.C.R. 1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 13 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

1.2.2. In addition, in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar5, the Court has held that
distinction is valid where it has a rational nexus with the object intended to be accomplished.
In the present case, the ban on specific fishing nets targets specifically those methods that are
harmful to the marine environment, & a clear nexus exists between the classification & the
purpose of environmental protection.

1.2.3. Although Art. 19(1)(g) assures the freedom to pursue any profession or continue any
occupation, trade, or business, the right is amendable to reasonable restrictions under
Art.19(6) for the sake of the general public. In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India6, the SC
held that limitations on trade practices prejudicial to public interest are constitutional. The
CCZMP order does not put a blanket ban on fishing operations; it only prohibits certain kinds
of nets that have been found to be detrimental to the marine ecosystem & demands prior
permission for cultural practices to promote environmental sustainability.

1.2.4. Art. 21 safeguards the right to life & liberty of a person, which has been construed by
the Hon'ble SC as encompassing the right to livelihood & a hygienic environment. In M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (1987)7, the Court identified environmental protection as a part of
Art. 21. The CCZMP order in the present case indeed protects the right to life & livelihood by
facilitating the sustainability of fishing activities in the long term. In the absence of such
regulatory actions, ongoing destructive fishing activities would result in irreparable harm to
the marine ecosystem & eventual depletion of fish resources, thus permanently jeopardizing
the livelihood of the fishing community.

The CCZMP order achieves this balance by permitting fishing activities to proceed with
environmentally friendly means instead of a total ban. Furthermore, cultural practices are not
banned outright but are merely regulated to reduce environmental impact, which is a
reasonable solution that respects both cultural rights & environmental needs.

1.3 ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES NOT EXHAUSTED

1.3.1 It is a settled principle that where there is an efficacious alternative remedy available
under the statutory scheme, constitutional writ jurisdiction, particularly under Art. 32, ought

5
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75)
6
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1960 SC 430)
7
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 463
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 14 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

not to be resorted to as a first measure 8. In the present case, the petitioners have gone directly
to the SC under Art. 32 without exhausting the available alternative remedies first. The EPA,
1986, under which the CCZMP was formed, contains a formal grievance redressal
mechanism. Sec.3(3) of the Act authorizes the Central Govt. to "constitute an authority or
authorities" to exercise & perform functions, including resolving issues related to
environmental protection measures.

1.3.2. In addition, the NGT, established under the NGT Act, 2010, has specialized jurisdiction
in environmental cases. In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of
India9 (2012) 8 SCC 326, the Hon'ble SC laid stress on going to the NGT in environmental
disputes & reiterated its position as an expert forum for such matters. As per Sec. 14 of the
NGT Act, the Tribunal acquires jurisdiction in all civil matters where a real question of fact
or law arises concerning the environment, particularly if such questions under laws specified
in Schedule I of the Act.

1.3.3. While the CCZMPs & other institutions deals with regulatory compliance & can act
upon grievances, they are not formal adjudicatory forums. Therefore, the petitioner ought to
have approached the NGT first for redressal. As no effort was made to approach remedies
through these right channels, & no claim was made that such remedies are inadequate, this
writ petition is premature & not maintainable.

1.3.5. In the present case, neither of the petitioners has sought relief. There is no suggestion
that these authorities are ineffective or bereft of powers. The grievance that has been raised
relates to actions taken in exercise of valid statutory powers. Unless the petitioner establishes
that the remedy before the NGT is ineffectual or unduly withheld, this Hon'ble Court should
not invoke its writ jurisdiction at this early stage. Hence, the writ petition is premature & non-
maintainable under Art. 32 of the Indica Constitution.

8
State of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S & Ors.

9
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 326
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 15 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

ISSUE 2: THE ORDER GIVEN BY CENTRAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

PLAN (CCZMP) OF MoEFCC, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent respectfully & most humbly submits that Order
dated March 1, 2024 is constitutionally valid. The challenged order is well within statutory
powers under Sec. 3 of the EPA, 1986, is constitutionally compliant under Art. 48A &
safeguards Art. 21 rights, is a reasonable restriction allowable under Art. 19(6) based on
scientific facts, applies established environmental principles & harmonizes cultural practices
with ecological conservation through a regulated permission mechanism & not prohibition in
absolute terms.

2.1 Statutory Basis & Constitutional Mandate for the CCZMP Order

2.1.1. The order making the CCZMP has directly taken authority under Sec. 3 of the EPA,
1986. It provides the Central Govt. the powers to "take all such measures as it considers
necessary or expedient for the purposes of protecting & improving the quality of the
environment." The survey is what determines the facts underlying which action was deemed
necessary in the form of an exercise under this provision. Additionally Sec. 3(2)(v) authorizes
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 16 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

in particular "restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes shall not be
carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards." The CRZ-I designation under
the CCZMP & the prohibition on harmful fishing gear directly exercise this statutory
authority.

2.1.2. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India10 (1996), the SC
reiterated that this power "is coupled with a duty to exercise the same where environmental
degradation is taking place" exactly the scenario reported in the February survey. The
restrictions are not random prohibitions but specific measures against particular harmful
practices identified in the survey as "harming water creatures, resulting in rare species of
fishes declining & polluting coastal eco system." This shows that the order is not only in
conformity with the letter but also the spirit of the EPA.

2.1.3. The CCZMP notification achieves the constitutional mandate under Art. 48A, which
itself clearly requires the State to "make every effort to protect & enhance the environment &
to preserve the forests & wildlife of the country." The dwindling fish species at Ratangad &
Senwadi, who "are on the verge of extinction" according to the survey findings, are exactly
the sort of wildlife whose protection is called for by Art. 48A. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India11, the SC held that Directive Principles are "fundamental in the governance of
the country" & should guide legislative & administrative measures.

2.1.4. By acting to conserve vulnerable marine species coastal environments through

controlled restrictions as opposed to blanket prohibitions, the CCZMP has met this
constitutional mandate. In addition, the SC in Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v.
State of U.P.12 stressed that Art. 48A imposes a positive obligation towards environmental
protection. The CCZMP order constitutes the discharge of this obligation owing to evidence
of environmental degradation within the coastal areas of Ratangad & Senwadi.

2.1.5. The right to life under Art. 21 has been interpreted widely enough to encompass the
right to a healthy & clean environment. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar13, the SC held
categorically that "the right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water &
air for full enjoyment of life." In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India14, the Court observed that
10
Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
11
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
12
Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) 2 SCC 431
13
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598
14
Supra M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 17 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

pollution directly impinges upon the fundamental right to life. In ensuring maintenance of
environmental conditions & marine biodiversity in these coastal areas, the CCZMP order
protects rather than offends Art. 21 rights. The order not only ensures the environmental
rights of the common man but also preserves the long-term livelihood from fishing for
generations to come for the people in these communities.

2.2 Reasonable Limitations on Fundamental Rights: The Balanced Approach of the

CCZMP Order under Art. 19(6): Addressing Specific Harmful Practices

2.2.1. The petitioner alleges that the order contravenes Art. 19(1)(g) rights to pursue any
profession. Nevertheless, the CCZMP order places reasonable restraints permissible under
Art. 19(6) on condition that they are enacted "in the interests of the general public." The order
doesn't blanketly ban fishing activities but focuses on destructive practices posing a danger to
marine biodiversity & coastal ecosystems. In Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise
Commissioner15, the SC held that regulatory steps which affect some professions do not
amount to a breach of fundamental rights if taken in promotion of an overall public interest.
The CCZMP order prohibits only certain types of nets which have been singled out through
survey as being particularly damaging.

2.3 Application of Principles of Established Environmental Law to the Ratangad &

Nova Case

2.3.1 The CCZMP order correctly enforces the Precautionary Principle, acknowledged by the
SC in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu16 as an essential element of
environmental jurisprudence. The Court concluded that "where there are threats of serious or
irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." The survey
undertaken, offered credible evidence of depleting fish stock & contamination to justify
preventive measures. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India 17, the Court
held that the Precautionary Principle places the burden of proof on those generating potential
danger to the environment & that the CCZMP's intervention is not only justified but
mandatory in the light of documented peril to marine biodiversity.

15
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner (AIR 1954 SC 220)
16
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu(1999) 2 SCC 718
17
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 18 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

2.3.2 The CCZMP order satisfies the government's duty under the Public Trust Doctrine,
which the SC in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath18 characterized as imposing "the State as a
trustee under a legal duty to protect natural resources." The Ratangad & Senwadi coastal
waters & their marine biodiversity are natural resources held in public trust. By controlling
activities that endanger these resources, CCZMP is performing its role as trustee to avoid
what the Court referred to as "private use of important ecological & environmental features."
The order guarantees that no part of the population is able to utilize common natural
resources in ways that undermine their availability & quality for ors. & generations yet to
come.

2.3.3 The CCZMP order is a classic example of the doctrine of sustainable development,
which the SC in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 19 has explained as
"development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs." Through prohibiting certain destructive forms of fishing but permitting
sustainable fisheries to proceed, the order tugs & balances with long-term environmental
protection. In Intellectual Forum, Tirupati v. State of A.P. 20, the Court considered that
"when irreconcilable interests come into direct conflict, environmental protection must be
given priority" for ensuring intergenerational equity, a concept applicable directly to
protecting marine resources. The CCZMP order balances this by enabling cultural practices to
survive under controlled conditions that safeguard the coastal environment. The permission
system allows cultural practices to be preserved as they are modified to reduce their
environmental footprint, achieving both cultural preservation & environmental conservation
goals at the same time. By enforcing permission & prescribed action for cultural practices,
the CCZMP guarantees that traditions can be sustained in environmentally friendly manners.

2.4 Legal Empowerment for Conservation Measures under the Biological Diversity Act,
2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, provides additional statutory support for the CCZMP
order. Section 36(1) requires the Central Govt. to develop national strategies for conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity. Section 38 empowers notification of threatened

18
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
19
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664
20
Intellectual Forum, Tirupati v. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 19 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

species for special protection. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 21

(2012) 3 SCC 277, the SC upheld restrictive measures to protect biodiversity, noting that
biodiversity conservation is a constitutional and statutory obligation. The CCZMP order
implements these obligations by protecting marine biodiversity in the affected coastal
regions.

ISSUE 3: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FISHING GEAR PROHIBITIONS AND

REGULATION OF CULTURAL PRACTICES IS FAIR, NON-DISCRIMINATORY,
AND RESPECTFUL OF THE FISHING COMMUNITY'S TRADITIONAL
CULTURAL RIGHTS

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent respectfully & most humbly submits that the
CCZMP's Order limiting fishing gear & managing cultural practice is in law, limitations
applied are fair, proportionate, & non-discriminatory, consistent with the reasonable
restrictions provided for under Art. 19(6) & consistent with Art. 14 of the Constitution, the
regulative system achieves a constitutionally justifiable harmony between environmental
protection & cultural freedoms, regulating rather than prohibiting customary conduct, the
rules are consistent with the doctrine of sustainable development & intergenerational fairness.

21
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 277
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 20 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

The measures taken by the CCZMP are therefore completely constitutional & necessary to
ensure sustainable marine biodiversity for generations to come.

3.1 The CCZMP Action is Lawful, Justified, & Environmentally Necessary

3.1.1. The Central Govt, as per Sec. 3 of the EPA, 1986, has ample powers to "take all such
measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting & improving the
quality of the environment." The legislative requirement patently includes the power under
Sec. 3(2)(v) to ban particular activities in environmentally sensitive areas altogether or with
conditions. As per these powers, the CCZMP also conducted a scientific survey that surfaced
serious marine biodiversity threats along the Ratangad & Senwadi coastal regions. The
survey revealed destructive fishing, along with pollution due to traditional cultural practices
as major reasons behind depleting fish populations. On these premises & under the authority
of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC), the CCZMP, through
the challenged notification, sought to mitigate environmental degradation.

3.1.2. The SC of Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India 22 recognized

Precautionary Principle to be included as a part of environmental jurisprudence of Indica.
Under the principle, scientific uncertainty should not be the basis for delay in taking cost-
saving steps to prevent environmental harm.

3.1.3. The CCZMP's regulatory mechanism is the quintessence itself of this norm in
promoting forward-looking measures in order to prevent harm to vulnerable marine life &
habitats from inexcusable deterioration. The public interest in maintaining coastal
biodiversity is not merely rightful but constitutes an obligation under constitutional mandate
under Art. 48A & is embodied in the fundamental right to life under Art. 21 as invariably
interpreted by Indican courts.

3.2 The Restrictions are just, Proportionate, & Non-Discriminatory

3.2.1 Art. 19(1)(g) gives citizens the right to follow any profession or vocations, but this right
is expressly made subject to reasonable restrictions by Art. 19(6). The CCZMP's explicit
prohibition of specific fishing gear is a reasonable restriction in the public interest of
environmental conservation. In the same way, the right to livelihood & life under Art. 21
needs to be interpreted along with the right to a healthy environment. In Rural Litigation &

22
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 21 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh23, the Court identified the right to live in a
healthy environment as a dimension of Art. 21. Similarly, in the case at hand, the notification
of the CCZMP seeks to protect the Art. 21 rights of the current & future generations by
preserving the livelihood of traditional fishing & culture as well as the ecological balance
essential for sustainability in the long term.

3.2.2. The order of the CCZMP is proof of proportionate tuning instead of blanket ban. It
bans only specific gear scientifically proven to be damaging to the environment but not
fishing itself. For cultural purposes, it follows a permit-based regime of regulation rather than
prohibition, offering for activities to continue in ecologically friendly terms. The restrictions
are imposed equally to all communities on the basis of scientific criteria, irrespective of
social, cultural, or religious considerations. This differential treatment satisfies the
proportionality test developed in constitutional jurisprudence because it employs the least
restrictive means at hand to satisfy legitimate environmental objectives.

3.2.3. The notification of the CCZMP is given uniformly to all the notified Coastal
Regulation Zones in an even-handed & non-discriminatory manner without prejudice to any
particular community, religion, or caste. The classification of the zones as CRZ-I & the
resulting restrictions are on objective determination of environmental sensitivity rather than
whim or caprice or insensitive social choices. Such classification on the intelligible
differentia having rational nexus to the goal of environmental protection meets Art. 14
standards.

3.3 The CCZMP Notice Obtains a Constitutional Equilibrium Between Environment

Protection & Cultural Rights

3.3.1. Unlike the assertions of the Petitioners, the CCZMP order does not ban cultural or
religious congregations but institutes a permission-based system of regulation. This ensures
that cultural activities are permitted to continue in line with environmental precautions for
pollution avoidance in dumping waste, crowd management, & protection of sensitive
breeding grounds. The SC in Noise Pollution v. Union of India & Sundaram v. State of
Rajasthan24 has established reasonable regulation of religious & cultural practices if adopted
in the interest of the public. The CCZMP permission model best embodies this judicial norm,
achieving an optimal balance between safeguarding cultural expressions under Art. 25 & 29
23
Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1988 SC 2187]
24
Noise Pollution v. Union of India & Sundaram v. State of Rajasthan
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 22 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

on the one hand & upholding the state's environmental commitments under Art. 48A &
51A(g) on the other.

3.3.2. The order of the CCZMP is not an outright prohibition of cultural practices but
provides a regulatory system. The survey pointed out certain pollution problems due to
cultural practices where "peoples from local region leave their waste materials in coastal
premises & in sea water during the transition of the cultural practices," indicating the
necessity for regulated & not free practices. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A.
Nagaraja25, the SC held that cultural practices must change in accordance with constitutional
values, including environmental protection: "Tradition cannot be allowed to override the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution."

3.4 The Doctrine Of Sustainable Development Legitimizes The CCZMP Regulation

Model

3.4.1. The CCZMP's actions are buttressed by the doctrine of sustainable development,
whereby people's activities are to be reconciled with nature preservation. The SC recognized
the need for development & environmental balancing, & the need to invoke Art. 48A &
51A(g) in Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 26. This legal
foundation

is consistent with the CCZMP's approach of controlling, rather than prohibiting, economic &
cultural practices to render them compatible with ecological sustainability.

3.4.2. The CCZMP's limitations are temporary & reviewed periodically with the objective of
preserving marine resources for future generations. This policy is consistent with the
principle of intergenerational equity, which ensures that present economic & cultural
activities do not irreversibly destroy ecological resources that future communities will need.

3.5 Principles of Natural Justice Were Enshrined In Issuing The CCZMP Notification

3.5.1. The CCZMP Notification is subordinate legislation of general application & not an
administrative order aimed at individuals. As settled in Union of India v. Cynamide India

25
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547
26
Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 1987 AIR 1109
1987 SCR (2) 223
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 23 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

Ltd. & Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha 27, natural justice
principles mandating individual hearings are not applicable to legislative or policy measures,
especially those adopted for environmental protection.

3.5.2. Although not obligatory under the law, the CCZMP undertook a thorough coastal
survey & made its decision on scientific grounds, illustrating procedural fairness. In addition,
the flexibility inbuilt in the notification by way of conditional permission for cultural activity
illustrates an equitable response that acknowledges both environmental necessities &
community demands.

The CCZMP notification forms a constitutionally sound framework that harmonizes

environmental protection with livelihood & cultural rights. The focused restrictions on certain
fishing gear & the regulated permission regime for cultural practices are proportionate, non-
discriminatory, science-backed, & consistent with constitutional notions of sustainable
development. The Hon'ble Court is thus respectfully requested to affirm the validity &
enforceability of the CCZMP notification in the greater interest of environmental protection
& intergenerational justice.

PRAYER

Wherefore In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities cited the
counsel on behalf of Petitioners humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:

1. The present Writ petition under Art 32 of the Constitution of Indica is not maintainable
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica.
2. The order issued by the Central Coastal Zone Management Plan (CCZMP) of MoEFCC is
constitutionally valid.

27
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha
1970 AIR 1269
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page 24 of 25
 9th INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

3. The CCZMP’s prohibition on fishing equipment and cultural practices is constitutional,

proportionate and does not violate fundamental and cultural rights

AND/OR

Pass any order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble court may deem for in the interests of
justice, equality and good conscience.

For the act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall forever pray.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 25 of 25