TC: 12
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
(WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
GREEN MANTRA .................................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
MAHARAJA LAL & SONS ..............................................RESPONDENT
(Through Mr. Bhanwar Lal)
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA)
MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
TABLE OF
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………...3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…….......…………………………………………..4
STATEMENT OF FACT ………………………………………………………………..5
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………6
ISSUE 2: Whether there is any incongruence between Right to Environment and Right to
Livelihood which was provided by Mr. Bhawar Lal??
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…..................................................................................7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................................8
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………….11
Page | 2
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS Pg. No.
8
Bakri Ali Rangwala v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC Online NGT 1894]
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union Of India , (2019) 15 SCC 401 9
Vellore citizen welfare forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647] 10
10
MC Mehta v. Union of India (2020) [2020 SCC Online SC 29]
STATUE REFERRED:
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
BOOKS & ONLINE SOURCES
1. M.P JAIN ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
2. SCC ONLINE
3. INDIAN KANOON
Page | 3
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
STATEMENT OF
The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by the way of writ petition filed under Article
32 of Constitution of Indica. The Hon’ble Court has the requisite jurisdiction for the adjudication
of the present dispute.
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 directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.
Page | 4
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
STATEMENT OF FACTS
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1. The Republic of Indicia is a country located in the South-East Asian part of the world which is
densely populated and is endowed with land-locked mountains in the north and plateaus in the
middle part of the country. The country got the independence in 1947 when the industries
were at nascent stage due to colonial loots and was struggling to revive its economy. After the
four decades of independence the policy of Liberalization, Globalization, and Privatization
(LPG) were introduced. So many industries started to grow and one of such factory was
owned by Mr. Bhanwar lal under the name of Maharaja Lal & Sons. It was also believed that
all the Environmental Clearance relating to the production of chemicals were received as the
producers had political connections, but none of this was ever sanctified by an independent
agency.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The factory was a going concern and producer of chemicals required for scientific
laboratories in vicinity. The production raised the various environmental concerns on
emanating fumes and obnoxious chemicals out of the factory.In the year 2022, Mr. Bhawar
Lal collaborated with Rajaji Clothing and Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. for producing wrinkle free
shirts. As a part of the agreement, the former was supposed to produce Perfluoroalkoxy
alkanes (PFA) for which reimbursement will be given from profits earned by Rajaji clothing
and hosiery Pvt. Ltd
3. In a newspaper report which came out in ‘Indicia Daily ‘on 9 th October, 2022, which stated
that Mr. Bhawar Lal’s factory has provided employment opportunities to plenty of youth in
the local vicinity and along with this opened ‘Teaching centers’ for the underprivileged
sections of the society and was labelled as ‘Local Messiah’ of the region. However this
report was a mouthpiece of these business mafias.
4. On 12th December, 2023 an emergency situation was created because of the certain fumes
were witnessed from the factory outlet due to which the workers started coughing vehemently.
Soon, the entire labor force of the factory started vomiting blood and were instantly taken to
the hospital. The local hospital stated that Hydrogen Fluoride is responsible for the ill-health
of these individuals. Irregular heartbeats in some patients were also witnessed and
unfortunately, three people died on the spot.
5. Mr. Bhanwar Lal who has been compromising environment and health for profit maximization
blamed the local liquor for the ill-health of the workers and completely refuted to take up any
responsibility in the regard. Furthermore, some ex-employees of the factory told the local
reporters that such obnoxious fumes were quite common in the factory and owners have been
bribing the State environmental authorities and getting clearances for ensuring smooth
functioning of their ‘murderous endeavor’.
FILING OF THE CASE
6. So the Local NGO, by the name of ‘Green Mantra’ filed a writ petition on 25 the April, 2024
before this Supreme Court of Indica that the alleged factory is solely responsible for violating
the Right to Environment available with the citizens. Hence the present Petition.
Page | 5
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 2- ENROLLMENT NO. -09217703822
WHETHER THERE IS ANY INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO
ENVIRONMENT AND RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE
MR. BHANWAR LAL?
Page | 6
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 2: Whether There Is Any Incongruence Between Right To Environment And Right To
Livelihood Which Was Provided By the Mr. Bhanwar Lal?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica that there is the
incongruence between the Right to environment and Right to Livelihood which was provided by
the Mr. Bhanwar Lal. It is humbly argued on the following grounds that:
A. DOCTRINE OF BALANCING RIGHTS
B. PART-IV FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION
C. POLLUTERS PAY PRINCIPLE & DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST
Page | 7
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 2: Enrollment No. -09217703822
WHETHER THERE IS ANY INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO
ENVIRONMENT AND RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY
MR. BHAWAR LAL?
It is most humbly submitted before this Supreme Court of Indica that there is incongruence
between the Right to environment and Right to livelihood provided by Mr. Bhanwar Lal.
2.1 DOCTRINE OF BALANCING RIGHTS
Reading of Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica follow as:
Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
I. Right to environment comes under the purview of interpretation of article 21 and also the
right to livelihood but as per the doctrine of Balancing of rights given by the roscoe pound
in his book Social engineering that in order to make system work properly it is essential that
when all claims are balanced it must be done carefully at the time of balancing a social
interest may be given the superiority to the individual interest and that social right can only
be balanced against another social interest .
II. So in the present case it is argued that fumes and obnoxious chemicals generated by the
factory is severely affecting not only the workers of the factory but the town at large just for
the profit maximization on the sake of environment degradation.
III. Furthermore such production of chemicals have not only harmed the environment but also
have taken the life of 3 workers of the factory which defeats the definition of article 21
“Right to Life”.
IV. In the case of Bakri Ali Rangwala v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 which is similar to the
facts of the present case highlights a conflict between environmental protection and the
right to livelihood. It involves traders in the Mahakal Corridor of Ujjain who challenged a
government-imposed ban on using wood-fired cooking. The National Green Tribunal
1
Bakri Ali Rangwala v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC Online NGT 1894]
Page | 8
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
(NGT) prioritized environmental concerns over the traders' livelihood claims, enforcing
measures to control pollution in a sacred and environmentally sensitive area.
V. In the landmark case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India2, this court held
that in cases involving environmental governance, the court should decide the case on the
merits which involve present and future generations, sustainable development for today and
tomorrow.
2.2 PART-IV FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION
VI. The constitution of Indica provides fundamental rights which cannot be violated as the nature
of the rights are referred as basic rights without which the individual cannot survive and in if
case there is violation of these rights enshrined under Part –III of the constitution there is
remedy under Article 32 of this Constitution. At the same time Part-IV also defines the 11
fundamental duties which should be followed along with exercising fundamental rights.
VII. Article 51-A (g) states that the “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have
compassion for living creatures.”
VIII. So it is humbly argued that at the time of doing the activity not only the fundamental rights
should be kept in mind but also the Fundamental duties and both should be harmonized
because if at the cost of either of they or vice-versa violates each other than the purpose of the
constitution will be defeated.
2.3 POLLUTERS PAY PRINCIPLE & DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST
IX. The “Polluters Pay Principle” has been developed by the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). It basically means that the producer of goods or
other items should be responsible for the costs of polluting the environment. This principle
further imposes the two-fold liability namely compensation to victims and ecological
restoration.
X. The “Public trust doctrine” is a legal principle establishing that certain natural and cultural
resources are preserved for public use. Natural resources held in trust can include navigable
waters, wildlife, or land. The public is considered the owner of the resources, and the
government protects and maintains these resources for the public's use.
2
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union Of India , (2019) 15 SCC 401
Page | 9
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
XI. In the landmark case of Vellore citizen forum v Union of India3 ,court has firmly stated that
right to livelihood is not absolute and cannot come at the cost of environment degradation.
This case led to establishment of Polluter pay principal, precautionary principal and public
trust doctrine all of which in some way or the other deals with environmental degradation
and measures to correct it. Livelihood activities must align with environmental norms to
ensure long-term sustainability and uphold the fundamental right to a healthy life. This case
serves as a guiding principle for industries and governments to prioritize ecological balance
over short-term economic gains.
XII. In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India 4, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to
environmental protection and public interest, reinforcing the principle that the right to
livelihood cannot supersede the right to a healthy environment. The Court emphasized that
the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution inherently includes the right to a
pollution-free environment. While recognizing the importance of livelihood, the judgment
asserted that economic or livelihood interests cannot justify actions that harm the
environment and, consequently, public health. The case involved directives on controlling
pollution through actions like banning stubble burning and ensuring proper waste
management. The ruling highlights a balancing act between developmental needs and
environmental conservation, mandating that governmental bodies adhere strictly to
environmental laws and implement sustainable practices to protect both the environment
and public welfare.
XIII. Hence it is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there is the incongruence
between the Right to Environment and Right to Livelihood provided by the factory owner
and he should not be allowed to compromise the environment.
3
Vellore citizen welfare forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647]
4
MC Mehta v. Union of India (2020) [2020 SCC Online SC 29]
Page | 10
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PSDA, 2024
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO:
1. Declare that there is incongruence between Right to Environment and Right to
Livelihood provided by Mr. Bhanwar Lal.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
All of which is humbly prayed,
Counsel for the Petitioner
Page | 11
