TC- 76

VAKTRITA 1st NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

IN WRIT PETITION NO.______/24

IN THE MATTER OF:

LOCAL RESIDENTS ……………………………………………………...…....PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDICA & ORS. ………………………………………………....RESPONDENT

Along with

KSHITIZZ NGO & ORS ………………………………………………....…....PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDICA & ORS …………………………………………………....RESPOSDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED TO THE

REGISTRY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETTIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

5 ISSUES RAISED 9

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-

11

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue I: Whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the 12-
matters arising from the Green Corridor Initiative? 19
The petitioner has filed a PIL under Article 32, challenging the Green Corridor
Initiative for violating fundamental rights and environmental laws. The case seeks
court intervention to address these violations and prevent ecological harm.
Issue 2: Whether the Green Corridor Initiative is constitutionally valid?
The Green Corridor Initiative is challenged for being unconstitutional and unlawful,
driven by financial motives. It violates multiple laws, including the Environment
Protection Act and Wildlife Protection Act, and fails to obtain proper consent and
conduct necessary assessments.

Issue 3: Whether the rights of the indigenous communities, including their

cultural and environmental rights, are violated by the Green Corridor
Initiative?
The Green Corridor Initiative is challenged for violating the constitutional and legal
rights of indigenous tribes in Sagaland by displacing them and harming their
environment and cultural heritage. It breaches provisions of the Forest Rights Act
and the Land Acquisition Act, including inadequate consent and compensation.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 3

8 PRAYER 20

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

1.

2. HMA Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

3. SMA Special Marriage Act, 1954

4. Hon’ble Honorable

6. & And

9. u/s
Under Section

10. SC Supreme Court

12. u/a Under Article

13. Sec. Sec.

14. v. Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURT CASES:

1. T. Damodar v. S.O Municipal Corporation Hyderabad, A.I.R, 1987, A.P, 171

2. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161
4. Noise Pollution Board v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 733
5. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
6. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
7. Intellectual Forum v. State of A.P, (2006) 3 SCC 549
8. Municpal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Co. (P) Ltd., (2014),
4 SCC 538
9. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P, A.I.R 1987 SC 374
10. Karjan Jalasay Y.A.S.A.S Samiti v. State of Gujrat, A.I.R, 1987 S.C. 532

STATUTES:

 THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986

 THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS

(RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006

 WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972

 THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPERANCY IN LAND

ACQUISTION REHABITILIATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013

 THE INDIAN FORST ACT, 1927

 THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010

BOOKS:
 MP. JAIN, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 (LexisNexis 21st edition)
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (Allahabd Law Agency 5th edition)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner under writ petition no _______/2024 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court u/a 321 of Indica Constitution.
Art. 32:-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

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

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Constitution.

1
India Const. art. 19, cl. 1(a)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The Republic of Indica, a developing nation in South Asia, is facing a major conflict between
infrastructure development and environmental conservation. The Union Government has
proposed the "Green Corridor Initiative," which aims to build highways, railways, and industrial
zones through Sagaland.

 Sagaland is known for its dense forests, rich biodiversity, and indigenous populations. The state
government has a long-standing pro-environment policy, with measures to protect its natural
heritage. Environmentalists argue that the Green Corridor Initiative will destroy this delicate
ecological balance.

 A central concern is the potential destruction of habitats for endangered species like the Great
Indian Kingfisher. The project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been criticized as
inadequate. Environmental activists claim that the project’s long-term consequences on
biodiversity have not been properly addressed.

 The indigenous Adivasi tribes of Sagaland are particularly affected by this project. They have
lived in harmony with the forest for centuries and rely on it for their livelihood and cultural
practices. There are allegations that the government bypassed the required consent process
under the Forest Rights Act of 2006.

 The Union Government defends the Green Corridor Initiative, stating that it will bring economic
development to Sagaland. The project is expected to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and
uplift the standard of living for local residents. It also promises mitigation efforts such as
reforestation and wildlife corridors.

 Critics argue that the economic benefits of the project do not justify the environmental and
social costs. They claim that the EIA did not adequately assess the risks. As a result, there is
growing opposition from local communities and environmentalists.

 The involvement of Globex Infrastructure Ltd., the multinational company awarded the project,
has further fueled controversy. Globex has a history of unsustainable practices and

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 8

environmental violations in other countries. This has raised concerns about its commitment to
protecting Sagaland’s environment.

 The State Government of Sagaland has voiced its concerns about Globex's involvement. They
have demanded greater transparency and stronger oversight of the project. The state remains
sceptical about the company's ability to follow environmental laws and implement effective
mitigation measures.

 The legal battle over the Green Corridor Initiative has now reached the courts. Indigenous
communities, environmental activists, and the Sagaland government are united in challenging
the project. They argue that it violates constitutional rights and environmental laws, and are
pushing for a detailed review of the project.

 The Supreme Court of Indica is scheduled to hear the case on 28 September 2024. The court
will examine the constitutionality of the Green Corridor Initiative, its environmental impact, and
the rights of indigenous communities. The decision will have far-reaching implications for both
development and conservation in Indica.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 9

ISSUES RAISED

[I]

Whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters
arising from the Green Corridor Initiative?

[II]

Whether the Green Corridor Initiative is constitutionally valid?

[III]

Whether the rights of the indigenous communities, including their cultural and environmental rights, are
violated by the Green Corridor Initiative?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[I]

Whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the

matters arising from the Green Corridor Initiative?

It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the petitioner has filed a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 2 of the Indian Constitution, challenging a project that
threatens their fundamental rights and the environment. Local residents, an NGO, the State
Government, and Indigenous Tribes are involved, citing violations of Articles 19, 21, and 29, and
illegal actions regarding the Green Corridor Initiative. The PIL argues that the project, lacking
necessary environmental clearances and consent from affected tribes, harms their right to a safe
environment and cultural heritage. It seeks immediate court intervention to address these
fundamental rights violations and prevent further ecological damage.

[II]

Whether the Green Corridor Initiative is constitutionally valid?

It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the Green Corridor initiative is
challenged as unconstitutional and unlawful, driven by financial gain rather than public interest.
Globex Infrastructure Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) has a history of environmental negligence and
financial misconduct. The project violates multiple laws, including the Environment Protection
Act, Wildlife Protection Act, and the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act. It failed to obtain
proper consent under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act
and did not conduct necessary social impact assessments. The project also contravenes
provisions for forest land use and does not adequately address the protection of endangered
species, such as the Great Indian Kingfisher.

2
India Const. art. 32

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 11

[III]

Whether the rights of the indigenous communities, including their cultural and environmental
rights, are violated by the Green Corridor Initiative?
It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the Green Corridor Initiative by the Union
Government is challenged for violating constitutional and legal rights of the indigenous tribes in
Sagaland, who rely on the forest for their livelihood and cultural practices. The project, involving
infrastructure development through ecologically sensitive areas, infringes on Articles 19 3, 214, and 295 of
the Constitution by displacing tribes, harming their environment, and threatening their cultural heritage.
Additionally, it breaches legal provisions under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and the Land Acquisition
Act, 2013, including failure to obtain proper Gram Sabha consent and inadequate compensation. These
actions undermine the constitutional and legal protections afforded to the indigenous communities.

3
India Const. art. 19.
4
India Const. art. 21.
5
India Const. art. 29

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 12

ARGUMENTSADVANCED

[I]

Whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the

matters arising from the Green Corridor Initiative?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this
court u/a 326 of Indian Consti. In the form of Public Interest Litigation (herewith referred to as PIL). The
Hon’ble SC has the power to entertain a PIL regarding violating fundamental rights and disturbing the
environmental balance (as per the supreme court guidelines). The local residents of the village filed the
PIL to get a stay on the project due to a violation of their right to a free and safe environment enshrined
u/a 21 of the Indian Constitution, which also challenges the legality of the Green Corridor Initiative. The
state, NGO, and Indigenous community have unitedly filed the PIL as there is a gross violation of
fundamental rights of the tribes u/a197, 298 and 219 of Consti. and the respondents have an initiative that
would destroy the habitat and heritage of tribes and the ecological balance of the area.

(A). Locus Standi:

It is reverently submitted that the right to access the SC u/a 32 is a Fundamental Right itself and the SC
court has emphasized that this court is thus constituted as the protector and guarantor of the fundamental
rights, and it cannot consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications
seeking protection against infringement of such rights. In the present matter on hand, art. 19, 21, and 29
of the petitioners are violated by the respondents through various acts. The term ‘locus standi’ connotes
the right to bring an action and to be heard. Any member of the public or any public-spirited organization
having a bona fide and sufficient public interest will have locus standi to maintain an action for writ
petition u/a 32 as PIL.

In the immediate matter on hand, petitioner no.1 (Local Residents) has filed the PIL as there was a
violation of their Right to Life and a free and safe environment u/a 21 of Indian Consti. Kshitizz
(hereinafter referred as Petitioner no.2) is a public-spirited non-governmental organization (hereinafter
referred as NGO), which has actively worked closely with the State Government for the development and

6
India Const. art. 32
7
India Const. art. 19
8
India Const. art. 21
9
India Const. art. 29

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 13

welfare of the environment and Indigenous tribes of Sagland. The State Govt. of Sagaland (hereinafter
referred as Petitioner No. 3) has filed this PIL fulfilling their duty under the Directive Principles of State
Policy as well as under Art. 51-A 10 of the Indian Consti. as there the project announced by the Union
Government is based on illegal permissions, harming the environment of the state and violating the basic
fundamental of the citizens against the illegality of the Green Corridor. The respondents have also not
received the clearance of the State Pollution Board and also, they have trespassed the area which comes
under Economics Sensitive Zone which is a reserved area as per Indian Forest Act, 1927. Indigenous
Tribes (hereinafter referred as Petitioner No. 4) has filed this PIL as the respondents have done injustice
to them in regards to acquiring their ancestral land without any prior consent and compensation for the
same and also harming their Right to Culture u/a 29 of the Consti.

The PIL filed by the petitioners is bona fide and shows their sincere interest in safeguarding the forest of
Sagaland and its ecological balance. This issue requires immediate cognizance of the hon’ble court in
order to safeguard the general interest of the citizens of Sagaland against the unauthorized, unlawful and
arbitrary acquisition by the Central Government alongwith other respondents. Hence, it is submitted that
the petitioner has the locus standi to file the writ petition as PIL.

(B.) The PIL is concerning a matter of Public Importance:

PIL means litigation in the interest of the public. A matter under PIL is in the interest of the public when
there is gross violation of fundamental rights of a group or a class of people. The respondents have
violated various fundamental rights of petitioner no. 1 and 4 that encouraged them to file the present PIL.
As per the compilation guidelines of the SC, 2023, a class of people or a individual can file the PIL in
regards to when any authority destroys the environment and ecological balance as well when the
authorities torture the scheduled (indigenous) tribes in any matter.
The respondents have acquired the habitat and heritage of the Petitioner No. 4 for their personal gain and
they have violated the basic rule of law. Art. 21 11 has been violated on a gross level as the respondents
are willing to establish a project in the upcoming years, which would give birth to various pollutions like
noise, soil and air. They have not done EIA in laid down manner of 2006 notification which makes it
completely impossible to access the impact of the project on the environment of area which directly
impacts the right to safe environment of the residents of the area. The respondents have seized the right
to reside, food and shelter u/a 21 of the indigenous tribes as they are been vacated from their ancestral
land on which they are dependent for their food and living, also they didn't get the consent either by the

10
India Const. art. 51-A
11
India Const. art. 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 14

tribal community or by the local residents for the project which is necessary as per the provisions of
Forest Act, 2006. The Right to perform cultural activities u/a 29 12 has also been taken away by the
respondents as the forest which is being acquired by them was the venue for those activities from
centuries.
In conclusion, the petitioner submits that the writ petition filed as public interest litigation under Art. 32
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is maintainable because the petitioner has the locus standi and there is
a gross violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners.

[II]

Whether the Green Corridor Initiative is constitutionally valid?

It is humbly submitted before this hon'ble court the Green Corridor initiative, as presently pursued by the
respondents, is constitutionally invalid and unlawful. The project is tainted with malafide intentions,
motivated primarily by financial gain rather than genuine public interest for economic development.
The Globex Infrastructure Ltd. (herein after Respondent No. 2), has previously been accused of gross
environmental negligence and inadequate rehabilitation of displaced citizens in similar projects.
Allegations of wrongful financial gain and dishonest conduct have been substantiated against Respondent
No. 2 in prior proceedings before various environmental tribunals across different jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it is stated that constitution is a grundnorm and the laws are formed keeping in mind the
basic priciples of constitution which means violation of those laws, is the violation of constitution the
respondents have flagrantly violated statutory provisions under the Environment Protection Act, 1986,
the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013. These
violations are compounded by the breach of procedure of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 in regards to consent of Gram Sabha and local
residents in regards to construction of the project on the forest land.

12
India Const. art. 29

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 15

A. Violation of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013:
It is reverently submitted that the respondents has not fulfilled the provisions mentioned under the
RFCTLARRA, 2013. The act mandates the respondents under the proviso of Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii) 13, that the
authority acquiring the land shall receive the prior consent of at least seventy per cent of the affected
families of the area where the project is to be set up as per the norms of the appropriate government. In
the present case, the respondents have neither gathered the consent of Petitioner No.1 nor the Petitioner
No. 4 for the initiation of project as they come under the definition of affected families’ u/s 3(c).

It is submitted that as per the provision of Sec 4 of the act, the appropriate govt. (herein the case
Respondent No.1) which intends to acquire a land for a public purpose, it shall conduct a Social Impact
Assessment with the consultation of Panchayat or Municipal Corporation of the affected area. The
Respondent No.1 has not followed this provision for acquiring the land as they have not submitted any
report to the state government, Panchayat, gram Sabha or Municipal Corporation of its Social Impact
Assessment. The government has not conducted hearing of neither the EIA nor the SIA which makes
their actions completely illegal.

B. Contravention of STOTFD, 200614:

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the Sec 3(1) states the name of various projects that
the govt. can initiate for public purposes in a forest land and Sec.3 (2)(i) of the act mandates the govt. to
get a clearance and recommendation for the projects mentioned u/s 3(1) from the Gram Sabha of the
affected area. In the current scenario the respondents are planning to make industrial zones, highways,
and railways in the forest land, and as per the above provision the govt. has the power to construct only
roads u/s 3(1)(l) that also with a condition that deforestation should be of only seventy-five tress per
hectare.
The respondents neither took the clearance of gram sabha nor they have shown any evidence that how
much tress were cut down before the order of status quo by this hon’ble court. They have just taken the
signatures of the Sarpanch to show the consent of whole Gram Sabha which is not enough because Gram
Sabha is a body of adults as per Art. 240 15 of the Indian Consti.,which mandates that the decision of the
Gram Sabha will be taken by the majority of votes of adults of the area and not by the elected
representatives.
13

14
The scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) act, 2006
15
India Const. art. 240

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 16

C. Wildlife Protection Act:

It is respectfully submitted before this hon’ble court that the Great Indian Kingfisher is an endangered
species and the land being acquired is the natural habitat of the bird. The initiative will surely impact to
climate change as per the reports of various environmentalists and it will also deplete the count of the
abovementioned species.

The respondents have made a statement as per the proposition that they will construct Wildlife Corridors
for the bird which in the past years is only been done for one animal in India that is Tiger under the
National Tiger Conservation Authority. There has been no initiative in all these past years by the Union
govt. to create any major corridors for any other species, how will it possible now in an immediate sense.

[III]

Whether the rights of the indigenous communities, including their cultural and environmental
rights, are violated by the Green Corridor Initiative?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the state of Sagaland is a pro-
environment state which is home to various Indigenous tribes collectively known as Adivasis,
who have lived in harmony with nature for centuries. They depend on the forest for their
livelihood, cultural practices, and sustenance. The forest is not just a resource for them, but it is
an integral part of their identity and way of life. The Green Corridor Initiative by the Union
Government is a large-scale infrastructure project that includes the construction of highways,
railways and industrial zones, cutting through several ecologically sensitive areas and territories
that are habitats of indigenous tribes. There are concerns raised by the state government of
Sagaland and many other environmental activists that this initiative will lead to deforestation and
impact biodiversity and indigenous communities of Sagaland. There is also concern being raised
about the adequacy and fairness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out by
the Union Government. Also, there are allegations that the consent of Gram Sabha was not
obtained by following due process which has violated the provisions of the Forest Right Act,
2006. So, the Green Corridor Initiative by the Union Government has violated the various
Constitutional and legal rights of the indigenous communities including their cultural and
environmental rights.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 17

A. Whether the Constitutional rights of the indigenous communities are violated by the
Union Government through the Green Corridor Initiative.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Green Corridor Initiative by the
Union Government has violated the Constitutional rights of the people of indigenous
communities which are guaranteed by the Indica Constitution under Article 19 (Right to
freedom), Article 21 (Right to life) and Article 29 (Protection of cultural rights). Let’s discuss
each constitutional right in detail and how they are violated by the Union Government through
the Green Corridor Initiative.

Article 19 (Right to freedom) - This article states that all citizens have the right to freedom of
expression and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of Indica. As per para 9 of the moot
proposition, the Green Corridor Initiative project requires the acquisition of wide stretches of
land that are inhabited by indigenous tribal people. They are residing on this land for a long
period and if displaced because of the project it will lead to loss of their ancestral land.
Additionally, by undermining their ability to carry out cultural practices, the Green Corridor
Initiative violates their freedom of expression, as their cultural identity is deeply tied to their
connection with the land. So, the Green Corridor Initiative by the Union Government has
violated Article 19 of the Indica Constitution.

Article 21 (Right to life) - This article states that no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The right to life includes the
right to live with dignity, the right to livelihood and the right to a healthy environment. Personal
liberty includes the freedom to choose one’s place of residence. As per para 7 of the moot
proposition, the indigenous tribes have been living in harmony with nature for centuries. They
depend on the forest for their livelihood, cultural practices and sustenance. The forest is not just a
resource for them, but it is an integral part of their identity and way of life. The displacement of
Indigenous people will directly violate their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indica
Constitution. Moreover, the infrastructural development because of the Green Corridor Initiative
will deplete the forest cover and diminish the availability of the natural resources used by them.
This will lead to degradation of the environment and destruction of their natural habitat which
will reduce their quality of life. So, the Green Corridor Initiative by the Union Government will
violate Article 21 of the Indica Constitution.

Article 29 (Protection of cultural rights) – This article states that any section of the citizens

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 18

residing in the territory of India having a distinct language, script or culture shall have the right
to conserve it. The petitioner contended that the state of Sagaland has always stood for the rights
of Indigenous communities. It has implemented many policies that promote their welfare and
preserve their cultural heritage. These programs include initiatives like access to education,
healthcare, support of traditional livelihood etc. As per para 8 of the moot proposition, the rituals
of the indigenous communities which are closely connected to the natural environment may
slowly fade away, not being transcended to the future generations, because of the displacement
of these communities for the project, which is a huge loss to their culture and heritage. So, the
Green Corridor Initiative project by the Union Government will violate Article 29 of the Indica
Constitution.

B. Whether the legal rights of the indigenous communities are violated by the Green
Corridor Initiative.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Green Corridor Initiative has
violated the various legal rights of the indigenous communities which are given in various Indica
laws such as The Forest Right Act, 2006 and Land Acquisition Act,2013. Let’s discuss all the
relevant provisions of the above-mentioned laws in detail and how they are violated by the Green
Corridor Initiative.

Section 3 (1) of The Forest Rights Act,2006 states that forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional forest dwellers have the right to hold and live in the forest land, the right to
protect or conserve community forest resources and the right to in situ rehabilitation. The
Adivasis are dependent on the forest for their livelihood, cultural practices and sustenance. The
Green Corridor Initiative will displace the Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands on
which they have resided for centuries. This will lead to the destruction of forest resources and
traditional knowledge and practices which is a huge loss to their culture and heritage. Section
3(2) ii of The Forest Rights Act, 2006 states that the recommendation from the Gram Sabha is
mandatory. But, as per para 9 of the moot proposition, the consent of Gram Sabha was not
obtained by following due process and the permission of Gram Sabha was not taken at all, only
the signatures of the Sarpanch were taken. This is a clear violation of the legal rights of
Indigenous communities by the Green Corridor Initiative of the Union Government.

Sec. 41 (6) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 states that the govt. shall provide the one-third
amount of the whole compensation for land, to the affected families of indigenous tribes, before
taking possession of the land and the rest should be paid after taking over the possession of the
land. It is contended by the petitioner that it is not provided in the present matter. It is evident as

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 19

per the facts that respondents have taken possession of the land by cutting the trees without
providing the above-said compensation. So, it is a clear violation of the legal rights of Indigenous
communities by the Green Corridor Initiative of the Union Government.

In conclusion, the various constitutional and legal rights of indigenous communities, including
their cultural and environmental rights, are violated by the Green Corridor Initiative. Article 19 is
violated as they are displaced from their ancestral lands in which they are resided for centuries.
Article 2116 is violated as the right to live with dignity and the right to a healthy environment is
compromised because of infrastructural projects. Article 29 17 is violated as this project will
negatively impact their cultural practices, traditional knowledge and heritage. The inadequate
and unfair Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), not protecting the Great Indian Kingfisher,
not obtaining the consent of Gram Sabha with due process, and not providing proportionate
remuneration and rehabilitation have infringed various legal rights of Indigenous communities.

16
India Const. art. 21
17
India Const. art. 29

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 20

PRAYER

Therefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Declare Permanent injunction.

2. Pass the order to release the land of possession.

And/Or

Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest
of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-
(Counsels on behalf of the Petitioners)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER