Memorial Respondent

B.
M Sreenivasaiah Memorial 3rd National Moot Court 1

Competition
TEAM CODE: TC22
BMS LAW COLLEGE

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
SWADESHI SURAKSHA SAMITI

TRIBAL COMMUNITY
(PETITIONERS)
v.
UNION OF INDIANA
RUSTOM URANIUM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
(RESPONDENTS)
W.P. NO. ______ OF 2016

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

B.M Sreenivasaiah Memorial 3rd National Moot Court 2
Competition
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………2
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………..3
Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………………………4
Statutes……………………………………………………………………………………...4
Authorities referred……………………………………………………………………..…..5
Table of Cases………………………………………………………………………….…...6
Websites…………………………………….……………………………………………....8
Statement of Jurisdiction……………………..…………………………………………….9
Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………………10
Statement of Issues………………………………………….……………………………..12
Summary of Arguments……………………………………………………………….......14
Arguments Advanced………………………………………………………………………..
Issue I
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana is
maintainable…………………………………………………………………………… …16
Issue II
Whether the rights of the Tribal Communities are infringed by the Mining
Projects……………………………………………………………………………………19
Issue III
Whether the Environmental Clearance is valid……………………………………….…..26
Issue IV
Whether the Government can denotify an area and allow developmental activities to be
conducted………………………………………………………………………………....30
Prayer…………………………………………………………………………….………32

Competition
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Para
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Ano. Another
Ass. Assam
AP Andhra Pradesh
APLJ Andhra Pradesh Law Journal
Corp. Corporation
Cr.LJ Criminal Law Journal
HP Himachal Pradesh
ILO International Labour Organization
ICODHR International Convention on Declaration of
Human Rights
ICSCR- OP Optional Protocol of the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ICCR Indian Council for Cultural Relation
J. Justice
Ltd. Limited
MMDR Mines and Minerals (development and
Regulation) Act
Mad. LJ Madras Law Journal
Ors. Others
RUC RUSTAM URANIUM CORPORATION
PRIVATE LIMITED
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supl. Supplementary

Competition
Supp. Supplementary
STFDA Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers Act
UOI Union of India
UN United Nations
Vol. Volume
v. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES REFERRED
1. THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, 1950.
2. THE ENVIRONMENT ACT, 1986.
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES, 1986.
4. THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980.
5. SCHEDULED TRIBES AND TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, 2006.
6. MINES AND MINERALS ACT,
7. INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927
8. NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010
9. WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION), 1974
10. WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
11. WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT OF 1972
AUTHORITIES REFERRED
1. Basu Durgadas Introduction to the Constitution of India,New Delhi: Wadhwa and

Company Law Publishers, 2002
2. Basu Durgadas, Administrative Law, 2nd edition
3. Bell Stuart & Mc Gillivacray Donald,Environmental Law, 5th Edition
4. Craig P.P, Administrative Law, 2nd Edition

Competition
5. Das Gupta P., Environmental Issues for the 21st Century, (2003)
6. Datar Arvind P. on Constitution of India-Agra : Wadhwa & Co.,2001.
7. De, D. J. The Constitution of India, Vol 1 & 2
8. Dr Jaiswal Paramjith S. & Dr. Jaiswal Nistha , Environmental Protection,
Sustainable Development and the Law, Pioneer Publication Edition (2013)
9. Dr. Tiwari H.N., Environemntal Law, Edition (2007)
10. Dr.U.P.D. Lesari,Lectures on Administrative Law, 2nd edition
11. Jain M.C., Kagzi ,The Constitutional of India, Vol.1 & 2.-New Delhi: India Law
House, 2001
12. Jain M.P., Cases and Materials on Indian Administrative Law, (1994)edition,
Volume1
13. Jones, Administrative Law, 7th Edition
14. Kautilya, Administrative Law, 7th Edition
15. Leelakrishnan P., Environmental Law In India, Edition (2012)
16. Massey I.P, Administrative Law, 8th Edition
17. Mathew, P.D. Fundamental Rights in Action,New Delhi: Indian Social Institute,
1996
18. Pandey J.N, Constitutional Law of India,Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 2003
19. Pylee M.V. Constitutional Amendments in India-Delhi : Universal Law,2003.
20. Sath S.P., Administrative Law, 4th Edition
21. Shashtri S.C., Envrionmental Law, Edition (2007)
22. Singh Gurdip, Environemntal Law in India, edition (2005)
23. Subbarao GCV, Administrative Law, 5th Edition (1990)
24. Takwani C.K. Administrative Law,3rd Edition
25. Tripathi, Cases and Materials on Administrative Law, Volume 1
26. Tripathi, Principles of administrative Law, 4th Edition
27. Upadhayay J. R, Administrative Law, 8th Edition
28. Anonymous, Judicial Control on Administrative Action, edition (2001)
29. Anonymous, Law Relating to Environmental Pollution and Protection, Edition
(2003)

Competition
TABLE OF CASES
1. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu 1999 (2) SCC 718;
2. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu II 2001 (2) SCC 62
3. A.S. Narayana Deeshitaylu v. State of Andra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1765
4. Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Anand Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098
5. Acharya Maharajshri NarenderaParsadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Others v. State
of Gujarat & Others, AIR 1974 SC 2098;
6. Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1073
7. Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India, AIR 1976 SC 2591.
8. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280
9. Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726;
10. Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC
11. Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 374
14. Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Coop. Ltd v. State of Karnataka
(1997) 8 SCC 31;
15. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051
16. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051
17. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051;
18. Chewang Pintso Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, W.P. (C) No. 22/2012
19. Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR 2000 SC 2773
20. Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR 2000 SC
2773;
21. Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR 2000 SC 2773
22. Commissioner H.R.E. v. L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282;
23. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya J. Avadhuta and Anr., AIR 2004 SC 2984;
24. Dr.Shivarao Shantaram Wagle v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 952;
25. G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620

Competition

28. G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620;
29. Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590
30. Indian Council for Enviro legal Action v. Union of India and Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 281;
31. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 261
32. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 (3) SCC 212;
33. Kanubhai Brahmabhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159
34. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SCC 176;
35. M.K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1987) 3 SCC 231
36. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 1999 J&K 81;
37. Mohammed Fasi v. Superintendent of Police, (1985) ILLJ 463 Ker;
38. N.D.Jayal v. Union of India (2004) 9 SCC 362
39. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of M.P, Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2011
40. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751
43. Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC
476
476.
476
46. People Union for better living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal
215;
47. PN Kumar v. Muncipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732
48. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996
49. R. L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of UP, AIR 1985 SC 1259
50. Rambhau Patil v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation 2002 (1) Bom
CR 76
51. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
52. Ramjilal v. Income tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97
53. Reliance Infocom Ltd v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33

Competition
54. Reliance Infocom Ltd v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33;
55. Reliance Infocom Ltd v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33
56. Romesh Thapar v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
57. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Appeal 4601-02 of 1997
58. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853;
59. Secretary, Govt of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583;
60. State of Kerala v. People Union for Civil Liberties, (2009) 8 SCC 46
61. T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinappa) v. Union of India, 2002
(10)SCC 606
62. Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
63. Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
64. University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR1965 SC 491;
65. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
66. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255
WEBSITES
1. www.emnrd.state.nm.us
2. www.epa.gov
3. www.euro.who.int
4. http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf
5. www.thehansindia.com
6. http://mahadgm.gov.in
7. https://www.lex-warrier.in
8. https://www.omicsonline.org
9. https://lawoctopus.com
10. www.conservationindia.org/resources/moef
11. http://www.moef.gov.in
12. www.uncil.gov.in
13. https://www.oecd.org

Competition
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32
of the Constitution of Indiana which reads as follows:
“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 the 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.”

Competition
PART A
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Indiana is a developing country where agriculture has quite a lot of takers. Around 35%
of the population are engaged in agriculture and agriculture related activities. A recent
discovery of valuable minerals has cast the spotlight on Indiana and Government of Indiana
(hereinafter referred to as GOI) is under a duty to ensure development as well as environment
protection. Namro which is declared as a Scheduled Area under Panchayat (Extension of
Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 is located in one of the states in Indiana where there is a high
concentration of tribal dwellers. Coal and Uranium were discovered in the said area. Namro
also lies within an area which has been declared as a Reserve Forest names Swadeshi.
2. Large number of tribal communities depend on the reserve forest for their livelihood and
they have been living there for quite a long time. They are engaged in conservation of forests
and never did any activity for the destruction of the environment. Indiana being a developing
country followed certain environmental ethic principles and policy stating that commercial
exploitation of natural resources is not permitted. Also, the Constitution of Indiana confers
fundamental duty on its citizens to protect natural resources.
3. Indiana, relied mostly on renewable sources of energy for its power production but there
were quite a lot of industries which still depended on non-renewable source such as coal.
There were a lot of agitations by voluntary associations who demanded that the reliance on
coal and other non-renewable source of energy should be brought to stop as it caused quite
a lot of environmental problems, air and water pollution and also affected the health and
hygiene.
4. Indiana, faced an electricity crisis in January 2016 due to inadequate resources to create
electricity. This electricity crisis created widespread chaos and panic and many small and
medium establishments had to close down temporarily which lead to temporary
retrenchment of workers who were not on regular payroll. The GOI also took steps and
closed down those industries which were said to pollute water and air resources.
5. On 26th May 2016, the All Indiana Labour Forum and All Indiana Industry association
approached the Supreme Court of Indiana to quash the layoff of the employees and also to

Competition
quash the cancellation of their license. Both the above said parties put forth their arguments
stating that such a decision by the Government infringes their right of livelihood and would
put their lives in peril. The government quashed the order of the Government and ordered
the government to submit a report and also ordered the Department of Atomic energy
(hereinafter referred to as DoAE) to find out alternative resources to tackle the electricity
crisis.
6. On 11th July, 2016, the DoAE submitted a report the production of electricity through
mining and extraction of Uranium from the ores of Swadeshi is the most feasible option to
overcome the current power crisis and that the lands may be leased to Uranium Corporation
of Indiana Limited (hereinafter referred to as UCIL). Based on the said report, the GOI
leased out 57 sq.km of Swadeshi which also included the Scheduled Area for a period of 50
years to UCIL
7. The voluntary organisations objected to the decision of DoAE and argued that the decision
results in harming the environment. The voluntary association also pointed out that the
quashing of closing orders would result in reopening of the industries and this would further
lead to harmful environment practises.
8. Meanwhile, indigenous communities rose up in arms against the mining activity saying
that it would hinder their livelihood and peaceful existence in the forests of Swadeshi. The
indigenous communities also raised the fact that there were quite a lot of sacred places, trees
and rivers which fall within the demarcated area for mining an0d if given a green signal,
would violate their traditions, customs and beliefs. Further, Swadeshi Suraksha Samiti
(hereinafter referred to as SSS), a non-governmental organisation, protested that Uranium
mill tailings.
9. On 16th December, 2016 UCIL by way of tender notification, sub-let the process of
extraction of minerals to Rustom Uranium Corporation Private Limited (hereinafter referred
to as RUC). On 1st March 2017, a Conditional Environment Clearance was granted for a
period of 30 years. On 5th April, 2017, RUC for a Forest Clearance for carrying out the
mining activities in the said area. Meanwhile, RUC who attained Forest Clearance was asked
to set up only a certain number of plants, but went on installing more plants than sanctioned
by the Government. This led to widespread overuse of resources.

Competition
10. The voluntary organisations agitated against the fact that quite a large number of
industries that were closed earlier had gained the permission of the government to continue
operating.
SSS and the tribal communities filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indiana before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana.

Competition
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I: Whether the Writ petition filed under the Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana
is maintainable?
ISSUE II: Whether the fundamental rights of the tribal communities has been violated?
ISSUE III: whether the environmental clearance is valid
ISUUE IV: whether the government can denotify an area and allow developmental activities
to be conducted
ISSUE V: Whether developmental activities can be allowed in an eco-sensitive zone

Competition
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA IS MAINTAINABLE?
The instant petition is not maintainable since the Petitioner has not exhausted all available
local remedies before approaching this Hon‟ble Court under Art. 32. The rule of exhaustion
of local remedies is a self-imposed restraint created this Hon’ble Court and is not a violation
of Art. 32. The Petitioner can approach the High Court under Art. 226 which would be able
to ascertain local conditions and facts and ensure proper compliance with its orders or the
National Green Tribunal which possesses the requisite expertise in these matters. In any
case, in any case, no fundamental rights have been violated.
ISSUE II:
WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES
HAS BEEN VIOLATED?
The Respondents submit that the Mining Project does not violate the right to shelter since
the Petitioner has not established it and in any case, there is a comprehensive Rehabilitation
package in this case. The right to wholesome environment, the right to health or the right to
livelihood under Art. 21. Further, there is no violation of any religious right or the right to
information. On the contrary, the Respondents submit that the Mining Project aids Art. 21
of the Tribal Communities and the public at large.
ISSUE III:
WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID
It is submitted that the environmental clearance granted to RUC cannot be challenged by the
petitioner since the public consultation requirement under the EIA has been satisfied as
hearing with the gram panchayat is sufficient. Moreover, the EC does not suffer from
Wednesbury unreasonableness and finally, the forest clearance is valid

Competition
ISSUE IV:
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN DENOTIFY AN AREA AND ALLOW
DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED
The Respondents humbly submits that the government can denotify an area to allow
developmental activities. The balance between environmental protection and developmental
activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principles of sustainable
development

Competition
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the instant petition is not maintainable
since, [A] the present writ petition has been filed prematurely; [B] the Petitioner is required
to exhaust local remedies before approaching this Hon’ble Court under Art.32; [C] a rule of
exhaustion of local remedies is not a violation of Art.32 and finally, [D] the Petitioner has
two alternative remedies.
[A] The present writ petition has been filed prematurely
The respondents humbly submit that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of
Fundamental Rights, it can step in under the jurisdiction of Article 321. The petitioners are
raising scholarly objection since there has been no displacement, no forceful assimilation
and nothing has been done to the environment.
[B] The petitioner is required to exhaust local remedies
It is submitted that Art.32 is not an absolute right and is subject to the self-imposed restraints
evolved by the judiciary. It has been held that since Art.32 confers “extraordinary”
jurisdiction, the same must be used sparingly and in circumstances where no alternate
efficacious remedy is available2. The reason for this is two-fold: first, to reduce the
increasing pendency of cases3 and second, to inspire faith in the hierarchy of Courts and the
institution as a whole4. Therefore, the petitioner is required to approach the High Court or
the National Green Tribunal before approaching the Supreme Court.
[C] The rule of exhaustion of local remedies is not a violation of Art.32
1
Romesh Thapar v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
2
Secretary, Govt of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583; Avinash Chand Gupta v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726; Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
3
PN Kumar v. Muncipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732
4
Kanubhai Brahmabhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159

Competition
It is humbly submitted that the right under Art.32 (1) is not so absolute that no rules of
procedure apply to it. Art 32(1) confers a right to move the Supreme Court by “appropriate
proceedings”. “Appropriate proceedings” is interpreted to mean “procedure relating to form,
conditions of lodgement of petitions, and compliance with a reasonable directions”5. Indeed,
procedural factors as res judicata, delay in filing the petition and parallel proceedings in
another court are considered before entertaining the appropriateness if a particular
proceeding.
The respondent maintains the applicability of maxim, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium6.
This fundamental maxim is the basis for the conception of Res Judicata. It is submitted that
the rule of exhaustion if local remedies is another such procedural guideline and does not
violate the right under Art. 32.
[D] The Petitioner has two alternative local remedies
It is humbly submitted that there are two alternative efficacious remedies that are available
before the Petitioner in the instant case. First, to approach the High Court under art.226 and
second, to approach the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NGT).
(a) The Petitioner may approach the High Court under Art.226
The power of High Court under Art.226 is wider than the powers of this Hon’ble Court
under art.32 of the Constitution*. Further, the reliefs prayed for can be granted by High
Court. This Court in ICELO held that in cases concerning environment, specifically, the
High Courts would be in a better position to ascertain local conditions and facts and
therefore, for proper monitoring, they must be preferred7.
In N.D.Jayal v. Union of India8, this Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred the matter to High
Court of Uttaranchal as it was expedient.
The issues in the instant case are similar and require knowledge and ability to assess local
conditions. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that remedy available under Art.226 is not just
an alternative but also, a preferable remedy.
(b) The Petitioner may approach the National Green Tribunal
5
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996
6
“In the interest of the state, there should be an end to litigation.”
7
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 261
8
(2004) 9 SCC 362

Competition
Alternatively, the Petitioner also has the option of approaching the NGT. The enactment of
NGT, 2010 has added a new dimension to the existing forest governance structure. The NGT
has explicit power to hear matters concerning the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which
forms the core of the various decisions of the Godavarman case9.
It is humbly submitted that the NGT has been expressly established to deal with questions
related to “enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and
compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto10”. Therefore, any submission that the NGT cannot enforce rights or
protect them adequately is erroneous. Moreover, the NGT is specially equipped to evaluate
scientific claims apart from regular civil claims due to the presence of scientific experts on
the bench. With due respect to this Hon’ble Court, it is therefore submitted that the NGT is
better situated than the Supreme Court to evaluate concerns about the health and
environmental consequences of the Mining Project11. In fact, the Supreme Court when faced
with similar cases, in the past, has lamented the lack of separate, multi-faceted
environmental courts equipped with both judicial and scientific inputs12. Further, in various
cases in the past, the Supreme Court has had to refer scientific questions to special
committees and expert bodies, thus, delaying the resolution of dispute. Thus, the Supreme
Court itself has recognised the value of the NGT to deal with such cases. It is submitted that
an expeditious resolution of the dispute is in the best interests of both parties.
The NGT Act provides that the NGT shall endeavour to adjudicate upon the dispute within
six months from the date of filing of application or appeal13.
Therefore, when an authority has been specifically set up to hear the issues pertaining to the
nature of this writ petition, the petitioner must rely on this remedy first before filing a petition
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In any case, the NGT reserves the right of the Petitioner to
challenge an order passed by the NGT in the Supreme Court14.
9
Datta Rithwick , Yadav Bhupender , Supreme Court on Forest Conservation (3rd ed, 2011)
10
National Green Tribunal Act Preamble (2010)
11
BHAT SAIRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION LAW 63 (2010)
12
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SCC 176; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India,
1996 (3) SCC 212; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu 1999 (2) SCC 718; A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. M. V. Nayudu II 2001 (2) SCC 62
13
National Green Tribunal Act 18(3) (2010)
14
National Green Tribunal Act 22 (2010)

Competition
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFIRNGED

BY THE MINING PROJECTS?
The jurisdiction under Article 32 can be invoked only when fundamental rights are violated.
It has been held that if a right, other than a fundamental right is claimed to be violated then
such questions can be addressed only in the appropriate proceedings and not on an
application under Art. 3215.
2.1 For fostering mining activities, can the right to life and livelihood accorded to
tribals be forgone?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Mining Project does not violate
[A] the right to shelter; [B] the right to wholesome environment; [C] the right to health or
[D] the right of livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The respondents humbly submit that the Mining project does not violate Art.21 but aids
Art.21 of the Tribal Communities and the public at large. It has been held that the right to
life includes assurance of all facilities to develop, including electricity16. Indeed, this
Hon’ble Court in Sundarrajan had described electricity to be “the heart and soul of modern
life”17 and approved of a nuclear plant. In the instant case, the purpose of the Mining Project
is evident- Alternative source of energy. Thus, the respondents submit that the Mining
project must be seen as facilitating the right to life under Art.21 of the general public at
large.
[A] The Mining Project does not violate the right to shelter
The Petitioner alleges that the Tribal communities face eviction on account of Mining
Project and this violates their right to shelter. It is submitted that the right to shelter is not
violated since, first, there is nothing on record to indicate displacement of the Tribal
Communities [a]; second, in any case, displacement per se is not a violation of the right to
shelter [b].
15
Ramjilal v. Income tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97
16
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051
17
G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620

Competition
[a] the Petitioner has not shown that there is any displacement of the Tribal Communities
It is submitted that the Petitioner has approached the Court merely on the apprehension of
displacement. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Tribal Communities are
displaced or are under a real threat of displacement. This Court on multiple occasions has
reiterated that although the strict rules of pleadings do not apply in a PIL, there should be
“sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed”. Indeed, the
litigant cannot expect the Court to engage in a fishing or roving enquiry18. Such details are
especially necessary in issues relating to displacement and rehabilitation since this Court in
the past has held that facts such as “how many persons had already vacated their houses and
how many handed over the possession of their land”19 are relevant. In the absence of any
material to establish there relevant facts, it is submitted that this submission must be
dismissed at the outset.
[b] Displacement per se is not a violation of the right to shelter
It has been held that the displacement of tribals does not per se result in the violation of their
fundamental rights20. Indeed, the Courts have drawn a distinction between forced
eviction/land-acquisition and lack of rehabilitation21. In ILO Convention No.169 allows for
involuntary displacement “in the interest of national economic development”.22 In fact, it is
submitted that there is a possibility for the Tribal Communities to lead a better life with more
amenities at the sites of rehabilitation.23
Further, it is submitted that the rehabilitation measures taken in this case are sufficient. The
measures are on the basis of the NRRP or State Government Norms which provide for land,
24
compensation, employment opportunities among other things. Therefore, the restriction
on the right to shelter, if any, is fair, just and reasonable.
[B] The Mining Project does not violate the right to wholesome environment
18
A. Hamsaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 51; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR
2004 SC 280
19
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of M.P, Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2011
20
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
21
State of Kerala v. People Union for Civil Liberties, (2009) 8 SCC 46
22
ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries ( ILO No.169)
23
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of M.P, Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2011
24
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy , 2007

Competition
It is humbly submitted that the Mining Project does not violate the right to environment
since Project is [a] subject to stringent regulations and oversight by competent bodies that
ensure change in environment, if any, is not harmful; [b] the question whether the Mining
Project is dangerous is essentially a scientific one that is beyond the scope of judicial review;
and [c] the right to environment must be balanced with other interests.
[a] The Mining Project is subject to stringent regulations and oversight by competent bodies
The Petitioner humbly submits that the Mining Project causes radiation, generates
radioactive waste and causes environmental degradation. However, at the outset, it is
submitted that the radioactivity content of Uranium that is available in India is very low 25
and thus, significantly reduces the risk of environmental degradation. Further, the operations
take place with utmost care to eliminate and minimise hazards26. Moreover, all mining
operations by RUC are subject to constant environment and radiological surveillance by
various independent bodies such as Baba Atomic Research Centre, Director General of
Mines Safety, State Pollution Control Board, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and
International Commission on Radiological Protection which checks for compliance with all
regulations and safety standards27
Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in environment does not per se violate Art.21
especially when ameliorative steps are taken to preserve and improve it28. Conditions such
as afforestation in an equivalent area, development of emergency response system and non-
obstruction of water courses are provided as safety guards in Environment Clearance
(hereinafter referred to as EC)29. In any case, care for the environment is a continuous
process and ameliorative steps can be taken as required30. Therefore, it is humbly submitted
that Art.21 has not been violated.
[b] Scientific questions are beyond the scope of judicial review
25
‘Myths- Unfounded Apprehensions’ available at http://www.uncil.gov.in/web/myths.html (last visited
26
Id
27
See Atomic Energy ( Radiation Protection) Rules (2004); Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive
Waste) Rules (1987); AERB Safety Guide to AERB Management of Radioactive Waste Code (2007)
28
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751
29
Annexure A
30

Competition
The issue of environmental safety is one that requires scientific expertise. There is a long
standing tradition of this Court not interfering with the decisions of experts31 . In Tehri
Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti, it was held that the role of the Court is only to investigate
whether the Government was alive to the inherent dangers of a project and whether the
Government had applied its mind to the safety of a project.32 In this case, the safety aspects
of the Mining Project have been considered by experts and the Respondents at the EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment) stage. Therefore, it is submitted that it is beyond the
scope of judicial review to re-open such questions merely on the apprehension of
environmental degradation.
[c] A proper balance must be struck between environment and development
In the instant case, a major electricity crisis resulted in the closure of many industries and
these industries laid-off their employees.33 Thus, there was a compelling need to resolve this
electricity crisis for development and in the interests of livelihood of these employees.
Indeed, it was this Hon’ble Court that had directed Union Government in All Indiana Labour
Forum v. Union of Indiana34 and also in All Indiana Industry Association v. Union of
Indiana35 which gave directions for exploring alternative energy sources to resolve the
power crisis. On previous occasions too, this Court has recognised the critical role of energy
for economic growth and development. 36
Further, it has been accepted that no development is possible without some adverse effect
on the ecology and environment.37 A proper balance must be struck between the protection
38
of environment and the development process. Therefore, even if the Mining Project has
the potential to cause harm, “the larger public interest of the community should give way”39,
31
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR1965 SC 491; Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing &
Processing Coop. Ltd v. State of Karnataka (1997) 8 SCC 31; Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC
32
Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
33
Factsheet ¶ 8
34
Factsheet ¶ 10
35
Factsheet ¶ 10
36
G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620; Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1987 SC 374
37
T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinappa) v. Union of India, 2002 (10)SCC 606
38
Indian Council for Enviro legal Action v. Union of India and Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 281; Rambhau Patil v.
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation 2002 (1) Bom CR 76; People Union for better living in
Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal 215; DIVAN SHAYAM & ROSENCRANZ ARMIN,
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA 157-158 (2nd ed. 2002).
39

Competition
this approach was taken in Narmada Bachao Andolan40 and Sundarrajan41 and it is
submitted that such an approach must be adopted herein.
[C] The Mining Project does not violate the right to health
The Respondents humbly submit that the right to health is not violated in the instant case
since the Mining Project has not violated any safety regulations or standards, there is no
specific consensus on the harmful effects of radiation and finally a balancing approach has
to be adopted and here the benefits outweighs potential risks.
The Mining project is under strict supervision by various authorities to ensure that all safety
features are complied with. In previous cases, where projects were under challenge for
allegedly harming human health, the Courts have merely considered if the scientific
safeguards have been complied with.42This rule is applicable even in cases concerning
radiation. 43
There is no direct evidence to establish cause-effect between radiation exposure from

Uranium mining and adverse health effects on humans. In absence of consensus of scientific
opinion, in this regard, it is submitted that this Court must not step in and side with one view.
Admittedly, the precautionary principle has been adopted in India, however, it has limited
application in the field of environment. 44
Finally, it has been held that sometimes the ill-effects of technology have to be tolerated at
the cost of their advantages.45 Since the Petitioner is unable to demonstrate any tangible
harm to human health, this balancing approach is the right one. Further, the substantial
benefits of the mining project outweigh the apprehension of minor health problems, it is
submitted that there is no violation of right to health.
40
41
42
Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 1999 J&K 81; Reliance Infocom Ltd v. Chemanchery Grama
Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33
43
Dr.Shivarao Shantaram Wagle v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 952; Reliance Infocom Ltd v. Chemanchery
Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33; M.K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1987) 3 SCC 231
44
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
45
Reliance Infocom Ltd v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33

Competition
[D] The Mining project does not violate the right to livelihood
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the right to livelihood is not restricted
since they are merely displaced, but still enjoy access to the lands and forests of Swadeshi
[a]. In any event, the restriction is justified [b].
[a] There is no deprivation of the right to livelihood
The Tribal communities engage in activities such as agricultural activities, apiculture,

gathering the products of the forest etc. for their livelihood. It is humbly submitted that this
right is not infringed since the Environmental Clearance mandates that RUC permit the
Tribal Communities to continue with these activities according to their customary practises.
In the instant case, the Tribal Communities still have access to these lands and forests for
their livelihood and this is unconnected with their displacement. Indeed, in Chameli46, this
Court held that a land acquisition for a public purpose does not violate the right to livelihood.
Thus, it is submitted that the Petitioner may not argue that the mere displacement from their
traditional lands is sufficient to establish deprivation of livelihood.
On the contrary, the opportunities for livelihood for the Tribal Communities are enhanced
since the NRRP, 2007 and the Environmental Clearance give preference for employment in
the project to those who are affected. Further, the NRRP, 2007 also provides for their
vocational training which increases their overall employability.
[b] The deprivation of the right to livelihood is justified
It is humbly submitted that the right to livelihood is not absolute and is sometimes has to
yield to compelling public interest.47 In the instant case, the Mining Project was undertaken
to remedy to severe electricity crisis that resulted in the closure of many industries. In fact,
it was this very Hon’ble Court that called for the power crisis to be addressed expeditiously
in the interest of the livelihood of the industrial workers who faced forced layoffs and
retrenchment. Indeed, in Banwasi Sewa Ashram48, this Hon’ble Court on similar facts agreed
with the executive’s decision to prioritise the industrial growth of the country and demand
46
Constitution of India, Art,19(6) (1950); Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051
47
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051; Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 374
48
Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 374

Competition
for energy NO.Project on livelihood of those who work therein is also a relevant factor to
be considered.49
2.2 Whether adequate importance need be given to sacred areas of Tribals?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that adequate importance has been given
to the sacred areas of tribals but the Tribal communities have not established how their
religious rights are violated [a] and in any event, a restriction on their religious rights is
justified [b].
[a] The Tribal Communities have not established any violation of religious rights
It is submitted that the Petitioner has not established the exact manner by which the Mining
Project allegedly violated their freedom of religion. Cases which have required the Court to
interfere on ground of violation of Art.25 by developmental projects have stated the specific
religious practice, such as worship of a particular deity50 or conduct of a ceremony51 that is
infringed. Furthermore, the freedom of religion is not absolute52 and extends to only those
religious practices that re essential or integral53. In this case, the Petitioners have only made
vague assertions that the lands, trees and rivers are considered sacred have failed to show
any actual invasion into their beliefs or essential practises by the Mining Project. Therefore,
it is submitted that no religious rights have been violated.
[b] In any event, the restriction on the religious rights is justified.
The right guaranteed under Art.25 is not absolute54 and can be restricted on, inter alia, other
provisions in Part III of the Constitution55. The right to development has been read into
Article 2156. Moreover, even in cases of encroachment of religious rights, it is legitimate for
the State to step in to balance competing interests taking into account the Directive Principles
49
Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590
50
Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476
51
Chewang Pintso Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, W.P. (C) No. 22/2012
52
Commissioner H.R.E. v. L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282; Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State of Bombay,
AIR 1962 SC 853; Acharya Maharajshri NarenderaParsadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Others v. State of
Gujarat & Others, AIR 1974 SC 2098; Church of God ( Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR
2000 SC 2773
53
Commissioner of Police v. Acharya J. Avadhuta and Anr., AIR 2004 SC 2984; Church of God ( Full Gospel)
v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR 2000 SC 2773; Mohammed Fasi v. Superintendent of Police, (1985)
ILLJ 463 Ker; Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255
54
A.S. Narayana Deeshitaylu v. State of Andra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1765
55
Church of God ( Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR 2000 SC 2773
56
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Appeal 4601-02 of 1997

Competition
and social welfare as a whole57. In this case, the Mining Project was undertaken to utilise
the resources of its country and to meet its requirements. It was most feasible method to
resolve the acute power crisis in the country.58 Therefore, it must be interpreted to be in
pursuance of the right to development, exercise of eminent domain and in any case, an
instance of the State balancing competing interests. Hence, it is submitted that any restriction
of the right of religion is justified.
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID?
It is humbly submitted that the Environmental Clearance granted to RUC cannot be

challenged by the Petitioner since first, the public consultation requirement under the EIA
has been satisfied [A]; second, the EC does not suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness
[B]; and finally, the Forest Clearance is valid [C]
A. The public consultation requirement under the EIA has been complied with
It is submitted for the requirement of public consultation has been satisfied in the instant
case. The EIA Notification specifies that a public hearing must be conducted for the purpose
of ascertaining concerns of all local affected persons.59 In the instant case, the public hearing
was conducted with the Gram Panchayats60- the elected representatives of the Gram Sabhas,
and the concerns of all local affected persons were thereby ascertained. Since the project
and locally affected persons are located in a Scheduled Area of Swadeshi, the PESA is
applicable.61 Sec. 4(i) of the PESA recognises the Gram Panchayat as a competent authority
for consultation in matters of land acquisition and rehabilitation.62Therefore, the public
hearing with the Gram Panchayats is sufficient for the purpose of public hearing under EIA.
In any case, the local affected persons are entitled to make written submissions.63Therefore,
their non-inclusion in the public hearing does not vitiate public consultation process. Hence,
the EIA was proper and the EC is valid.
57
Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Anand Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC
2098
58
Factsheet ¶ 12
59
Environment Impact Assessment Notification (2006).
60
Factsheet
61
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (1996)
62
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act § 4(i) (1996)
63
Environment Impact Assessment Notification ¶ 6.4, Appendix IV (2006).

Competition
B. The EC does not suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness
The Petitioner may submit that the EC suffers from Wednesbury unreasonableness on
account of cancellation of a mandatory public hearing by the SPCB and non-consideration
of all relevant objections by the EAC. An administrative decision is struck by Wednesbury
unreasonableness if it has, inter alia, “ignored a very relevant material which it should have
taken into consideration.”64 However, the Respondents submit that the SPCB did conduct a
public hearing which satisfies the requirement of a mandatory public hearing under the EIA
Notification, 2006.Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the EAC “ignored a very
relevant material which it should have taken into consideration” during the appraisal
process. In fact, there were no objections to be considered since the Gram Panchayats did
not raise any during the public hearing.65 Therefore, the decisions made by the SPCB and
EAC were sound and in accordance with law. The EC is not struck by Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
C. The Forest Clearance is valid
The Respondents submit that the Petitioner may not dispute the validity of the Forest
Clearance since first, the State’s rights over its mines and minerals is not restricted [a];
secondly, there is nothing to suggest that rights of the STs and TFDs have not been settled
[b]; thirdly, the consultation with the Gram Panchayat is sufficient [c] and finally, the prior
approval of the Central Government has been obtained [d].
[a]. The State’s rights over its mines and minerals is not restricted
It is submitted that the FRA and PESA do not interfere with the right of the State to mine
uranium. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 vests the State with the uranium resources within
the territory of India and confers the Central Government with eminent domain powers for
its mining and extraction.66This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Amritlal
64
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
65
Factsheet
66
The cumulative effect of the Act is to grant complete powers over uranium mining, extraction but,
specifically, Sec. 3 and 10 vest the Central Government with rights to compulsorily acquire and mine any
land that contains uranium.

Competition
Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India67 where it held that the State is “the owner
of minerals within its territory, and the minerals vest in it.”
It is submitted that the rights of the TFDs under the FRA do not interfere with the aforesaid
power of the State. This is because the FRA is “in addition to and not in derogation of” other
laws in force. 68
Since there is no law to the contrary, “laws in force “includes the Atomic
Energy Act. In fact, the SC has affirmed that the Forest Rights Act has not “interfered with
the right of the State over mines or minerals lying underneath the forest land, which stand
vested in the State.”69 Thus, the right of the State to mine remains undisturbed.
The PESA stipulates that prior approval of the Gram Sabha must be sought in the case of
prospecting license for minor minerals and auction thereof.70 Since uranium is not a minor
mineral, the approval of the Gram Sabha is not necessary. Therefore, the State has an
unconditional right to mine uranium from the reserve forest of Swadeshi.
In any case, the eminent domain powers conferred by the Atomic Energy Act, means that
the lands belonging to TFD can be compulsorily acquired after just compensation.
[b] Nothing to suggest that the rights of TFDs have not been settled
Sec. 4(5) of FRA stipulates that no TFD be evicted from his lands until the completion of
settlement of his rights under the Act.71 It serves the important purpose of preventing anyone
from evicting the TFD without due compensation. The Respondents submit that there is no
evidence on record to suggest that the settlement of rights has not been completed. Further,
the displaced Tribal Communities are being compensated according to the NRRP, 2007.72
The Respondents submit that due compensation is being provided to evicted TFDs.
In any case, the Gram Sabha, which is tasked with the settlement of rights,73 may be directed
to settle the rights of the Tribal Communities so that the land may be acquired for uranium
mining. In Orissa Mining v MoEF74, this Hon‟ble Court directed the Gram Sabha to
67
Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India, AIR 1976 SC 2591.
68
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act § 13 (1996).
69
Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476.
70
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act § 4(k) & 4(l) (1996).
71
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act § 4(5) (2006).
72
factsheet
73
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act § 6 (2006)
74
Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476.

Competition
complete the settlement process within three months. The Respondents submit that the Court
may adopt the precedent in the instant case.
[c] The consultation with the Gram Panchayat is sufficient
Since the mining project is located in the Scheduled Area of Swadeshi, the governing law
of PESA must be complied with. Sec. 4(i) of PESA states that the Gram Sabha or
Panchayatshould be consulted before acquisition of land in a Scheduled Area. In the instant
case, the Respondents have consulted with the Gram Panchayats living in and around the
Reserve Forest in a public hearing. 75
The FRA does not stipulate that the consent of the Gram Sabha must be obtained for all
developmental projects. In fact, Proviso (ii) to Sec. 3(2), which is the only provision that
refers to the consent of the Gram Sabha, is only limited to specified Government facilities
listed in Sec. 3(2). Therefore, it is submitted that the consultation requirement has been met
by the Respondents.
[d] Prior Approval of Central Government has been obtained
The FCA stipulates that any diversion of Reserve Forest land should be sanctioned by the
prior approval of the Central Government.76 The Central Government has delegated this
duty to the MoEF. In the instant case, RUC has applied to the MoEF seeking forest clearance
and the same has been granted in accordance with the law i.e. after consultation with the
Gram Panchayat. As the procedure under the FCA i.e. prior approval of Central Government
has been sought and the Gram Panchayat has been consulted, the FC may not be challenged
that it is violative of the FRA.
The Petitioner may raise the contention that the procedure under FCA is subject to FRA.
However in the context of mining, the FRA is silent on the issue of diversion of forestland
for non-forest purpose.77 Further, the FRA is not in derogation of any other law in force.78
Therefore, and the procedure stipulated under the FCA is not modified by the FRA. In the
75
Factsheet
76
77
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act Proviso (ii) to
§3
(2006). Consent of the Gram Sabha only in case of listed facilities managed by Government. It does not
contemplate the consent of Gram Sabha for other projects such as mining.
78

Competition
instant case, prior approval for mining has been obtained as per the FCA by RUC. Therefore,
the FC is valid.
ISSUE IV
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN DENOTIFY AN AREA AND ALLOW

DEVELOPMENTAL ACITIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED?
The Respondents humbly submits that the government can denotify an area to allow
developmental activities. The balance between environmental protection and developmental
activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principles of sustainable
development.
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and

environmental needs of the present and future generations.79 Economic growth and
development obviously involves changes in the physical eco-system. In general, renewable
resources like forest and fish stocks need not be depleted provided the rate of use is within
the limits of regeneration and natural growth. As far as, non-renewable resources like fossil
fuels and mineral are concerned , their uses reduces the stock available for future generation
but this does not mean that such resources should not be used80. The rate of depletion should
take into account the criticality of the resource, the availability of technologies for
minimising depletion and the likelihood of substitute being available.81
R.L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P,82 (popularly known as Doon Valley case) was
the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and ecology
balance which brought into sharp focus on the conflict between development and
conservation. The court emphasized the need for reconciling the two in the larger interest of
the country.
The Court took note of the fact that mining activity has to be permitted to the extent it is
necessary in the economic and defence interest of the country as also for safeguarding of the
foreign exchange position. The Court directed the government to file affidavit of responsible
authority as to whether keeping the principles of ecology, environmental protection and
safeguards and anti-pollution measures, it is in the interest of the society that the economic
79
Principle 3 of Rio Decalaration of 1992
80
P.S. Jaiswal, Nishtha Jaiswal, Environmental Law, 2011
81
Brundtland Report
82
AIR 1985 SC 652. See also R. L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of UP, AIR 1985 SC 1259

Competition
and defence requirement should be met by import or by tapping other alternate indigenous
sources or mining activity in the area should be permitted to the limited extent.83
The Government, at both the central and the State level, has to keep a tab and formulating
appropriate policies and effectively implementing them for the overall development of the
sector which is environmentally sustainable.84In the instant case, adequate safeguards85 are
provided by the government to the industries regarding the conservation of environment and
the licence has been provided accordingly.
83
Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1073 where the court dealt with the question as to
“how to strike balance between the need of exploitation of the mineral resources lying hidden in the forest
and the preservation of the ecological balance and to arrest the growing environmental deterioration”
84
CCNM Global Forum on International Investment, Conference on Foreign Direct Investment and the
Envrionment, Lessons to be learnt from the Mining Sector. https://www.oecd.org
85
Annexure A, Factsheet

Competition
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that;
1. The instant writ petition is not maintainable and to dismiss the petition;
2. The mining project does not infringe on any fundamental right of tribal communities;
3. The environmental clearance granted to RUC is valid;
4. That the Respondents are not causing environmental degradation
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed
Counsel for Respondents

Competition
PART B
BMS LAW COLLEGE
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
ALL INDIANA INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
(PETITIONER)
v.
UNION OF INDIANA
VOLUNTARY ORGANISATION
TRIBAL COMMUNITIES
(RESPONDENTS)
W.P. NO. ______ OF 2016
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Competition
STATEMENT OF JURISIDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32
of the Constitution of Indiana which reads as follows:
“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 the 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.”

Competition
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Indiana is a developing country where agriculture has quite a lot of takers. Around 35% of
the population are engaged in agriculture and agriculture related activities. A recent
discovery of valuable minerals has cast the spotlight on Indiana and Government of Indiana
(hereinafter referred to as GOI) is under a duty to ensure development as well as environment
protection.
Indiana, relied mostly on renewable sources of energy for its power production but there
were quite a lot of industries which still depended on non-renewable source such as coal.
There were a lot of agitations by voluntary associations who demanded that the reliance on
coal and other non-renewable source of energy should be brought to stop as it caused quite
a lot of environmental problems, air and water pollution and also affected the health and
hygiene.
Indiana, faced an electricity crisis in January 2016 due to inadequate resources to create
electricity. This electricity crisis created widespread chaos and panic and many small and
medium establishments had to close down temporarily which lead to temporary
retrenchment of workers who were not on regular payroll. The GOI also took steps and
closed down those industries which were said to pollute water and air resources.
On 26th May 2016, the All Indiana Labour Forum and All Indiana Industry association
approached the Supreme Court of Indiana to quash the layoff of the employees and also to
quash the cancellation of their license. Both the above said parties put forth their arguments
stating that such a decision by the Government infringes their right of livelihood and would
put their lives in peril. The government quashed the order of the Government and ordered
the government to submit a report and also ordered the Department of Atomic energy
(hereinafter referred to as DoAE) to find out alternative resources to tackle the electricity
crisis.
On 11th July, 2016, the DoAE submitted a report the production of electricity through
mining and extraction of Uranium from the ores of Swadeshi is the most feasible option to
overcome the current power crisis and that the lands may be leased to Uranium Corporation
of Indiana Limited (hereinafter referred to as UCIL). Based on the said report, the GOI
leased out 57 sq.km of Swadeshi which also included the Scheduled Area for a period of 50
years to UCIL a

Competition
The voluntary organisations objected to the decision of DoAE and argued that the decision
results in harming the environment. The voluntary association also pointed out that the
quashing of closing orders would result in reopening of the industries and this would further
lead to harmful environment practises.

Competition
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1: WHETHER BLAMING INDUSTRIES AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVED ALL

PROPER LICENCE IS CORRECT?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: WHETHER BLAMING INDUSTRIES AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVED

ALL PROPER LICENCE IS CORRECT?
The petitioner humbly submits that blaming industries after they have complied with all the
necessary requirements in accordance with law is not justifiable.

Competition
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER BLAMING INDUSTRIES AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVED

ALL PROPER LICENCE IS CORRECT?
The Respondents humbly submit that the government can revoke the licence of the industries
if it is not in the interest of the public according to Industries Development and Regulation
Act of India 1951.
The respondents contend that the industries were involved in polluting the environment and
it is evident that the pollution from the industries were quite above the permissible limits yet
no strict action was taken.86 This resulted in air and water pollution and also affected the
health and hygiene of the habitants87.
Indiana has huge mineral resources. Thus, the mining industry is a very important industry
in Indiana. Moreover, in Indiana this sector is facing several challenges which are
 Massive Investment required in exploration and the up gradation of technology

 Mitigation of environmental degradation due to mining
 Adoption of environment friendly technology
 Tackling of social issues like- displacement of the population, marginalisation of
local communities and economic disparities in mining areas
 Rehabilitation of closed and abandoned mine sites
The Mining sector in India is plagued by several environmental and health and safety related
problems. Several accidents have taken place in underground and surface mines like coal
and stone mines in the last few years, which have killed scores of mine workers. An example
of environmental damage by a mining company in India is Kudremukh Iron Ore Company
Limited (KIOCL) in the Western Ghats Mountain Ranges in Karnataka State in Southern
India. The Operations of KIOCL have caused large scale destruction of hills, pollution of
ground water in the neighbourhood and have severely affected the Kudremukh National
Park.
86
Factsheet ¶ 7
87
Factesheet ¶ 6

Competition
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that;
1. The appropriate guidelines should be provided to the industries regarding the conservation
of environment;
2. The industries must carry on their functions in the interest of the public.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,
Counsel for the Respondents

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B.

M Sreenivasaiah Memorial 3rd National Moot Court 1

TEAM CODE: TC22

BMS LAW COLLEGE

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

SWADESHI SURAKSHA SAMITI

W.P. NO. ______ OF 2016

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. Basu Durgadas Introduction to the Constitution of India,New Delhi: Wadhwa and

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

27. G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUE III: whether the environmental clearance is valid

ISSUE V: Whether developmental activities can be allowed in an eco-sensitive zone

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[A] The present writ petition has been filed prematurely

[B] The petitioner is required to exhaust local remedies

[C] The rule of exhaustion of local remedies is not a violation of Art.32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[D] The Petitioner has two alternative local remedies

(b) The Petitioner may approach the National Green Tribunal

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFIRNGED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[b] Displacement per se is not a violation of the right to shelter

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[b] Scientific questions are beyond the scope of judicial review

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[c] A proper balance must be struck between environment and development

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

There is no direct evidence to establish cause-effect between radiation exposure from

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[a] There is no deprivation of the right to livelihood

The Tribal communities engage in activities such as agricultural activities, apiculture,

[b] The deprivation of the right to livelihood is justified

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.2 Whether adequate importance need be given to sacred areas of Tribals?

[b] In any event, the restriction on the religious rights is justified.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID?

It is humbly submitted that the Environmental Clearance granted to RUC cannot be

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

B. The EC does not suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness

C. The Forest Clearance is valid

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[c] The consultation with the Gram Panchayat is sufficient

[d] Prior Approval of Central Government has been obtained

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS