KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT PROBLEM, 2022

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TERABITHIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. ________/2022
(Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Terabithia, 1950)

REDWOOD CONSERVATION SOCIETY………………….PETITIONER

v.
UNION OF TERABITHIA & ORS……………………….RESPONDENTS

Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner,

Counsel for the Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Table of Cases
Books
Websites
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Statement of Issues
Summary of Arguments
Arguments Advanced
Prayer

Issue – I

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE
Issue - II
WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY DECISION OF
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VIOLATES RULE OF LAW AND ART. 14, ART. 21

Issue – III
WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFRINGED BY
THE MINING PROJECTS?
Issue – IV
WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

B. BOOKS
1. A. Sabitha,Public Health: Enforcement and Law (1st ed. 2008).
2. A. Usha, Environmental Law (1st ed. 2007).
3. A. Usha, Environmental Pollution: International Perpectives (1st ed. 2008).
4. Aruna Venkat, Environmental Law and Policy (1st ed. 2011).
5. Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India (2d ed. 2007).
6. Colette Daiute, Human Development & Political Violence (1st ed. 2010).
7. Darren J O’Byrne, Human Rights: An Introduction(1st ed. 2003).

C. LEGISLATIONS REFERRED
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
2. THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 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, 1957
7. ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, 1962
8. INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927
9. NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010
10. PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETIES AND FARMERS' RIGHTS ACT OF
2001
11. PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT, 1991
12. WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION), 1974
13. WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
14. WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT OF 1972
15. THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013
16. LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894

D. WEBSITES REFERRED
www.scc.online.com
www.indiankanoon.org

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

5
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE PETITIONER
HAS APPROACHED THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN APPREHENSION OF THE
VIOLATION OF RIGHTS THAT INEVITABLY OCCUR SHOULD THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT NOT BE STOPPED.
THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF ART 32
OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF INDIA FROM ANY
VIOLATION OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, IS APPLICABLE IN THE
PRESENT CASE.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

7
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

8
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE
1.1. The petition has been filed in public interest and therefore maintainable as public interest
litigation
1.2. Alternative remedies not a bar
1.3. The jurisdiction of the SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution extends to violation of the
rights alleged in the present matter

2. WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY DECISION OF

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VIOLATES RULE OF LAW AND ART. 14, ART. 21
2.1. Arbitrary and capricious acts of the State are annulled by Art. 14
2.2. The Policy of mining in the forests of Oakwood Zone is arbitrary and capricious and
hence violates Art. 14 and Art. 21

3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFRINGED

BY THE MINING PROJECTS
3.1. Violation of Constitutional protection and safeguards
3.2. The forced assimilation of indigenous people violates constitutional provisions of
India and international conventions & treaties

4. WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID

4.1. Environmental clearance invalid based on procedural violations
4.2. Violation of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
4.3. Environment Clearance when validated

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

9
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE
The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution is
maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed with the apprehension of
violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The improper
implementation of the policy decision of the Government by the company which falls under
the ambit of other authorities under Art. 12 of the Constitution. Thus, the petition is
maintainable.
2. WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY DECISION OF
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VIOLATES ART. 14, ART. 21 AND RULE OF LAW.
The petitioner comprehends that the implementation of the policy decision of the
Government if found to be arbitrary, thus violative of Art. 14 and Art. 21. Rule of law has
also been violated by the improper implementation of the policy decision of the Government.
This execution is not based on sound reason hence has delivered results that shows the
colourable exercise of power.
3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFRINGED
BY THE MINING PROJECTS
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, Article 19 and Article 21 of the
Constitution have been violated on account of arbitrary action of State, thus, resulting in
violation Article 14 as well. Right to Reside, Right to Livelihood and Right to Shelter have
been violated on the account of deforestation. It is further submitted that Right to Culture has
also been violated since; the indigenous people will be subjected to forced assimilation and
isolation.
4. WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID
It is humbly submitted that the RESPONDENT herein has not granted the environmental
clearance in accordance with the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, thereby
violating various provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Environment Protection
Act, 1986 and Environment Protection Rules, 1986. It is submitted that the environmental
clearance when validated causes damage to the environment, resulting in a disturbance to the
livelihood of the tribal community, causing health hazards to the tribes which in turn
infringes various fundamental rights of the tribal community along with other provisions of
the Constitution.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
10
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

11
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.
The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution 1 , since it falls within
the ambit of “other authorities” as enshrined under Art.12 of the Constitution. There will be
violation of Fundamental Rights if the project is taken on floors. Public Function is one
which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public” 2 .
Any institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the functions
performed, can be termed as government agencies 3 . Further under the well-established
doctrine of Parens Patriae, it is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the
rights and the privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations 4 . Thus, in this present
case, mining activity taken up by Rustam Uraniam Corporatation Private Limited (hereinafter
RUC) is both public function and governmental function. If RUC is a private party, a PIL can
be instituted against a private party under Art.32 of the Constitution, 5 if the State is made a
co-party in the petition.
1.1.The petition has been filed in public interest and therefore maintainable as Public
Interest Litigation
To invoke the writ jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right must
have been actually infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient. 6Applying the doctrine
of ‘reasonable apprehension’, this Hon’ble Court may interfere directly in the said case. The
most fundamental right of an individual is his right to life; if an administrative decision may
put his life at risk, the basis for the decision surely calls for the most anxious scrutiny
according to the principle of ‘anxious scrutiny’ 7 . Thus the petitioned filed before this apex
court is maintainable.

1
Constitution of India, Parimateriato Constitution of India (Herein after referred as
Constitution)
2
BinnyLtd.And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320
3
Sukhdev and Orsv.Bhagatram and OrsAIR 1975 SC 1331
4
CharanLalSahuv.Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480
5
Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161
6
Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503;Maganbhai V. Union of India AIR 1969
SC 783; D.A.V College v. State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731
7
7Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514, where Lord Bridge said at 531E-G
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
12
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

1.2.The jurisdiction of the SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution extends to violation of

the rights alleged in the present matter
1.2.1.Violation of the right of the tribal people
The fundamental right to equality enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution have been
violated because of the steps taken for the implementation of the project. The fundamental
right to reside in any part of the country and to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business enshrined under Art. 19 will be violated because of the
implementation of the project. The fundamental right to shelter and livelihood enshrined
under Art. 21 of the Constitution will be violated on the account of arbitrary action of the
State. The fundamental right to protect the interest of the minorities enshrined under Art.
29(1) will be violated again by the action of the state.

2. WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY DECISION OF THE

GOVERNMENT VIOLATES ART. 14, ART. 21 AND RULE OF LAW.
The petitioner contends that the implementation of policy decision of the Government has
rendered to be arbitrary, hence violative of right to equality enshrined under Art. 14, right to
life enshrined under Art. 21 and Rule of Law.
2.1. Arbitrary and capricious acts of State are annulled by the provisions of art 14
The petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of Art 14 extends to the prevention of arbitrary
and unreasonable actions of the State, which are “antithetical” to the rule of equality. The
principles of Indian Law have thrown open the gates of Executive action to Judicial Scrutiny.
The Rule of Law and the Rule of Reason or Reasonableness The petitioner submits that the
term Rule of Law, derived from the French term, la principe de legalite, is the foundation of
the concept of a State that revolves around the law, and not around men. As Lord Coke
observed in Rooke’s Case, acts which under the guise of discretion can only be described as
colourable exercise of power. The essence of judgments with development of the Common
Law is that exercise of discretion should be coupled with equity and grounded in sound
reason. The petitioner submits that the word reasonableness has been used in a biased manner
which is contradicting the Rule of Reason. The Wednesbury Test of Unreasonableness An
unlawful decision is one to which no reasonable authority could have come. This is the
underlying principle of the famous Wednesbury case, wherein Lord Greene MR expounded
the duty of an authority to consider facts that they are bound to consider. Thus, the petitioner
humbly submits that when there are alternative source of energy such as the solar energy, geo

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

13
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

thermal energy, wind energy, biomass energy etc. are present, these sources must be
considered.
2.2.The policy of mining in the forests of Swadeshi is arbitrary and capricious and
hence violates of Art. 14 and Art. 21
2.2.1.Violative of Art. 14
The petitioner submits that it is not unknown for a Governmental Agency to exaggerate the
benefits and underplay the deficiencies while making policy decision. In Avinder Singh v.
State of Punjab8 it was held that arbitrariness must be excluded from the law, for if power is
arbitrary, it is potential inequality, and Art 14 is fatally allergic to inequality of the law.The
petitioner submits that matters of national importance cannot be implemented negligently as
has been done by the Government in the present matter. Hence, violative of Art. 14.

2.2.2.Violative of Art. 21
In a plethora of cases9, the Supreme Court has held the inalienability of the Right to
Environment from the Right to Life is envisaged by Art 21. It has even held that protection of
the environment will have precedence over the economic interests of the Country.The easiest
way to deprive a person of his Right to Life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood. In Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P , the Supreme Court held that the rights
of forest dwellers take precedence over even an important public purpose30.The intent of the
Legislature “The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art 21 is wide and far reaching. It
does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the
imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by
law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the
right to livelihood because; no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means
of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to
live, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the
life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.”
The rights of Tribal dwellers have established through International Conventions3 10 as well as
8
AIR 1979 SC 321
9
26T. DamodharRao v. S.O. Municipal Corpn, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171; Indian
Council for Enviro Legal Action c. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281; Vellore Citizens
Welfare Forum’s case supra,; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411; M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 589; Narmada BachaoAndolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10
SCC 664.
10
32ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
14
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

by the Supreme Court through various cases.33The petitioner submits that tribal lives are
centered on the forests in which they dwell and to relocate them robs them of their
livelihoods.

3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFRINGED

BY THE MINING PROJECT?
The petitioner humbly submits that the mining project and the policy decisions of the
government regarding the matter are violative of the fundamental rights, constitutional
protection and constitutional safeguards enshrined in the Constitution.
3.1. Violation of Constitutional protection and safeguards
3.1.1. Violation of Article 19
The rights of the indigenous tribal communities to settle, reside and to own property
anywhere in the country, and in particular the forests of SWADESHI, as guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution has been violated, since; there will be encroachment in
the forest on account of deforestation. The Scheduled Tribes (vide Art.342) are a backward
class of people who are liable to be imposed upon by shrewd and designing persons. Hence
there are various provisions disabling them from alienating even their own properties except
under certain special conditions. In their own interest and benefit, laws may be made
restraining the ordinary rights of citizens to go or to settle in particular areas or to acquire
property in them. Thus it is a rude shock to find the Government and the Hon'ble Court to be
complicit in an act that not only infringes upon the fundamental rights of the innocent
civilians but also restrains the movement of the latter in forests which deprives of them of
their rights to peacefully coexist with the nature, of which they are an integral part. “We
appreciate the anxiety of the state Government to take possession of the acquired land. We
are also aware that the land has been acquired for an important public purpose. But, at t the
same time, we cannot overlook the human problem arising out of large number of tribal and
other persons belonging to weaker section on account of acquisition of land.” The act of the
Government, of curtailing the movement of the forest dwellers thus violates their
fundamental right to livelihood (vide Art. 21), in the present case. The right to residence and
settlement is a fundamental right under Art. 19(1) (e) and is a facet meaningful right to life
under Art. 21. When the State, as in this instance, has undertaken as its economic policy
planned development of this country, allotment of houses to weaker sections of the society,
the same has to be recognised as its part. The very nature of the act of the Government and its

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

15
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

policies are such that the permanent settlement right of the indigenous tribal communities,
though subjective, will be violated because of the gross negligence on part of the former to
comply with its own policies and the legislations of the Parliament. The Preamble, Art. 19(1)
(e) read along with Arts. 38, 39 and 46 make the life meaningful and liveable in equal status
with the dignity of the person. It is, therefore, imperative on the part of the state to provide
permanent housing accommodation to the indigenous tribal population or to sustain the
privileges provided in any undertaken projects within economic means. 11. In Ajab Singh v.
State of Punjab12 Bhandari, J., expressed the view that the right to practise any profession or
to carry on any occupation, trade or business becomes meaningless if it did not include the
right to stay in place suitable for such profession. The right guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (d) and
(e) are subject to the restraints imposed by clause (5) of the Article, which states that
reasonable restrictions in the exercise of any rights conferred by the said sub-clauses in the
interest of the general public. Such restraints when placed on the innocent indigenous people
would be the toughest litmus test on them for survival. It should be taken into mind that use
of the term “in the interest of the general public”, a wide enough term to cover serious and
aggravated forms of general disorders, does not mean the interest of the whole public of India
but rather the interest of a particular class of people. Thus the continent usage and declaration
that the absurd policies of government are in the interest of the general public does not sell
well. The right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his
living by Nothing in [sub-clauses (d) & (e)] of the said clause shall affect the opinion of
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or to prevent the State from making any
law imposing, in the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in
the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled
Tribes. The guarantee under Art.19(1) (g) extents to practise any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. Thus it should be noted that the profession of the
indigenous people, and their livelihood which depends on such activities, which is inclined
towards the forest for every necessity, would be put to absurdity and irrelevance under this
policy of the government. This Article represents basic values of a civilized society and
elevated the said values to the state of Fundamental Rights. The expressions “reasonable” and
“interests of the general public” are both elastic terms and a discussion of the full import of
these expressions necessarily involves a discussion of the political, social and economic
problems of the present day. In order to determine the reasonable of restrictions imposed
11
P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (Supp-2) SCC 182
12
Ajaib Sigh v. State of Punjab, 1952 Punj. 309 (F.B.)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
16
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

regard must be had to the nature of the business and the conditions prevailing in the business;
it puts the matter to a stalemate as the restrictions imposed on the Tribes are so unattributable
to the public interest and also the restrictions imposed strikes at the heart of their belief
system as well as their profession.
3.1.2.Violation of Article 21
The Article 21 of the Constitution envisages the right to livelihood as a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court has referred to the classic judgement of Field J 13. on the of the word;
wherein he stated that by the term 'life' as used means something more than mere animal
existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limits and faculties by
which life is enjoyed. Also ICCPR14, UDHR15 and ICESCR 16
recognizes right to life and
adequate standard of living. Further in order to establish violation of Article 21, the act
should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article
19.17 Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because it negates equality and permeates the entire
fabric of Rule of Law. Therefore, every action of the State must be guided by reason for
public good and not by whim, caprice, and abuse. Our Constitution makers were fully aware
to the need for providing specific safeguards to Scheduled Tribes in India. They knew it well
that humanness of society is determined by the degree of protection it provides to its weaker,
handicapped and less gifted members. Whereas in a jungle everybody fends for himself and
devil takes the hindmost, in a civilized society reasonable constraints are placed on the
ambitions and acquisitiveness of its more aggressive members and special safeguards
provided to its weaker and more vulnerable sections. These considerations are basic to any
scheme of social justice and their neglect will brutalize any human society. Unless
adventitious aids are given to the under privileged people like the Scheduled Tribes, it would
be impossible to suggest that they have equal opportunities with the more advanced people.
This is the reason and the justification for the demand of social justice that the under-
privileged citizens of the country should be given a preferential treatment in order to give
them an opportunity with the more advanced sections of the community.

3.1.3.Livelihood of Indigenous People.

13
Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 US 113
14
Article 6, ICCPR
15
Article 3, UDHR.
16
Article 11, ICESCR.
17
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.AIR 1978 SC 597.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
17
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

The term “indigenous people” is not recognized in India as given in the Convention on
Indigenous people and they have in no way been guaranteed with any special status, per se,
unless recognized under the constitution as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore,
all tribal are considered to be indigenous, but all indigenous people are not considered as
tribal. To be safeguarded under Art. 244(1) of the Constitution as Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe, the President has to recognize the indigenous people as Scheduled Tribe. It
is to be taken that they are scheduled tribes by the virtue of them being in the Scheduled area.
Thus, their rights have also been construed to be safeguarded under Art. 244(1) and the
provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, in the present case, the
indigenous tribal communities are to be considered on the same footing as Scheduled Tribes.
The source of livelihood for forest dwellers for generations has been forests and forest lands
and so they are considered inseparable. However, with the advent of civilization they
exploited by outsiders, thus, there was a necessity to protect the inherent rights of indigenous
people to empower them to utilise and to exercise control over forest for sustainable
development. Thus it should be taken in mind that the precarious nature of the state policies
goes against every established sense of reasonableness; depriving the indigenous people there
land would not only affect them but also the entire nation.

3.1.4.Deforestation and its Effect On Livelihood

As stated above forest dwellers derive their sustenance, shelter, source of livelihood, social
and economic status from forests, therefore, for them forests act as potent weapon of,
economic empowerment in social democracy. In the present case, the forests of Swadeshi has
been the home and sustenance ground for the tribal communities for centuries. The act of
constraining their movement inside the forest and the further aggravated act of being
ambiguous about the fundamental right of proper rehabilitation puts the livelihood of the
tribal people in jeopardy. The promotion of economic interests of the Scheduled Tribes is
also a notable feature of our Constitution. Thus the act of the government in depriving the
Scheduled Tribes of their rights goes against the fabric of the Constitution. Even though no
proper resolution was passed by the Gram Sabha, the Government of India and DoEF has
gone against established conventions and modalities in their pursuit of voidness. The actual
operation of the tribal safeguards is of vital importance than merely peeping through the
constitutional provisions. In this context, it has become necessary to lay down personnel
policy geared towards the objectives of the development of the tribal people of the society.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

18
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

Therefore, in the fitness of things, the institutional, structural and functional contours of
various programmes have to be in conformity not only with the accelerating pace of
development but also with the constitutional rights and safeguards. 3.2. Forced Assimilation
of indigenous people violates Constitutional provisions of India and international conventions
& treaties.
3.2.1.Forced Assimilation Is a Violation of Art 29(1), 48A and 51A
The Constitution of India clearly states that it is the duty of the State to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country under Art 48A –
Directive principles of State Policy and under Art 51A (g) -Fundamental Duties. The Courts
are increasingly relying on the directive principles as complementary to fundamental rights.
The combined reading of Art. 48A and 51A (g) visualizes the collaboration and conjoint
effort of the citizen and the state to attain the aspirations and objectives embedded therein.74
The phrase used in Art.48A, ‘protect and improve’ implies that government action is to
improve quality of environment and not just to preserve the degrading environment. In case
of failure to comply with the duties ingrained in Art 48A and 51A (g), it can be enforced in
courts by expanding the interpretation of Art.21. In order to attain the constitutional goal of
protection and improvement of the environment and protecting people inhabiting the
vulnerable areas from the hazardous consequences of the arbitrary exercise of power without
due regard to their life, liberty and property, the Court will be left with no alternative but to
intervene effectively by 71See the Constitution of India, Articles 16(4), 23, 24 and 38 to 47.
In this particular case the indigenous people will be made to under the pains of forced
assimilation; as they will be exposed to the outer world by this project. The PETITIONER,
thus, submits that there has been a gross violation of the fundamental right conferred under
Art. 29(1), 48 A and 51 A of the Constitution of India.
3.2.2.Right to Environment has been violated.
Article 21 of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Under Art. 21 of the
Constitution, people have the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for the full
enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws
including even the Government with its policies, as in the present case, a citizen has a right to
have recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which
may be detrimental to the quality of life. It does not only refer to the necessity to comply with
procedural requirements, but also substantive right of citizens. The Governmental policies in

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

19
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

regard to the mining project have no clear indication as to the safety measures taken. It is
known well that the mining of uranium causes great danger to the survival of both humans
and other living creatures in the area. The failure of the government in assessing the impact
can be taken as a mark of its incompetence. The Supreme Court has held the inalienability of
the Right to Environment from the Right to Life is envisaged by Art 21. It has even held that
protection of the environment will have precedence over the economic interests of the
country. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar 18 the court held that the right to life includes the
right to enjoy unpolluted air and water. In this case there is a constitutional imperative on the
state not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take
adequate measures to promote, protect and improve the natural environment or ethnic
identities;(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands,
territories or resources;(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect
of violating or undermining any of their rights;(d) Any form of forced assimilation or
integration; Article 10:Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or
territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the
indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where
possible, with the option of return. Another aspect of right to life-the right to livelihood can
potentially check government actions with an environment impact that threaten to dislocate
poor people and disrupt their livelihood. It is to be taken with a pinch of salt that the
government, through its policies, will endanger the lives of the innocent tribal people; the
subjugation of the tribal communities to the effects of atomic radiation can be compared to
the holocaust. Their right to peaceful co-existence with the nature will be endangered but
what is most starking is the policy of the government which would slowly kill the innocent
tribal people. In this time of hour it is imperative to also find the defects of the planning and
implementation of the policy decisions of the government in regard to the mining operations.
Thus the PETITIONER submits that the defence of dispicable and unsustainable policy of
environment is against the whole of the nation in a long term basis. Even if a treaty is not
'self-executing', courts should prefer interpretation of the statutes that conform to
international laws and treaties to which India is a party to those that do not The main general
international treaties that embody the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are
the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Both entered into force in 1976. There are also

18
AIR 1991 SC 420, 424. 871995 (2) SCC 577.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
20
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

specific international treaties elaborating certain rights with the UDHR such as the
Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Pleadings
Memorandum for the Petitioner 31 The privilege of the state to trade in obnoxious and
substances injurious to health was questioned.The Court held that the state has no right to
trade in substances obnoxious or substances injurious to health. It is the duty of the State to
protect the human life and improve public health. It cannot claim the privilege. Thus it is
submitted by the PETITIONER that the policies of the government in regards to the
development and extraction of uranium in the reserved forests is against the right to decently
clean environment bestowed in the Constitution. The fundamental character of the right to
life renders narrow approaches to it inadequate nowadays; under the right to life, in its
modern and proper sense, not only is protection against arbitrary deprivation of life upheld,
but states are under the duty ' to pursue policies which are designated to ensure access to the
means of survival of the people.

4. WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS VALID

The petitioner humbly submits that the respondent herein has not granted the environmental
clearance in accordance with the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006105,
which is necessary before every mining operation commences, thereby violating various
provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and
Environment Protection Rules, 1986. This particular petition questions the validity of the
environmental clearance, which when validated causes damage to the environment, resulting
in a disturbance to the livelihood of the tribal community which in turn infringes various
fundamental rights of the tribal community.
4.1 Violation of Mines and Minerals (development and regulation) Act
In addition to various violations of the acts above, it is humbly submitted by the petitioner
that the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act of 1957. Section 4 states that no person shall undertake
any mining operation without complying with the rules and regulation mentioned under this
act.114This attracts the attention of the petitioner to Section 6(1)(b) of the said act which
states that no person shall acquire one or more mining lease beyond the area of ten square
kilometers for the purpose of any mining of mineral listed under this act. Uranium is listed
under the said act 112 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006:- 8.Grant or
Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):(i) The regulatory authority shall consider

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

21
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the
applicant within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal
Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within
one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment Report,
and where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days
of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided
below. 117 Secondly, the respondent ought to have complied with the provisions laid down in
Section 8(1) of the MMDR Act of 1957 which states that the mining lease should not exceed
the period of thirty years. In this case, the land was leased to the UCIL for Uranium mining
for a period of 50 years118 thus violating the above mentioned provision. Further, the
petitioner directs the attention of the Hon’ble Court to proviso of Section 4(1)119 which
states that the provisions of Section 4(1) would not affect the prospecting operations taken by
the Department of Atomic Energy. It is important to note that, in the present case, the activity
that is to be conducted is not a prospecting operation, but a mining activity to extract
Uranium.120Therefore, there are no exceptions to the provisions of Section 4(1).
Environmental clearance thus granted is not in consonance with various provisions of various
acts and hence invalid in the eyes of law.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

22
 KRISTU JAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
1. To quash the impugned environmental clearance
2. To issue a prohibitary order restraining respondents in proceeding with the mining
project.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

Place:
Date:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

23