PETITIONER SIDE

1st speaker

May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel __ appearing along with my co-counsels ___, __
and ____ on behalf of the appellants in the case concerning State of Argo v. Union of la la land.
The counsel for the appellants has three contentions to submit before this Hon’ble Court. Hope
the lordship is well versed with the facts of the case. With your lordships’ kind permission may
the counsel move on to her contentions.
It is contended that the special leave petition is maintainable. It is contended that the jurisdiction
of Supreme Court (hereinafter as SC) under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question
of law of general public importance arises and even question of fact can also be a subject matter
of judicial review under Art.136. also,

1) A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the
SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated. In this
case the judgment of High court has various illegalities.

2) the matter involves general importance because of following reasons- In this case, the
proposed shale gas project will not only drench the ground-water from the land of farmers but
will also result in various seismic activities in the region leading to a lot of crisis. Further, the
infrastructural and intellectual capacity of the union government is not up to the standard as
required to implement a fracking process. This project will poison the land and will deprive the
Argo people of water facilities. The protection of Argo people have been stated in Article 371-A
of the Constitution and likewise, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to preserve the said land of
the Argo people.

 One of the main chemicals released in the fracking process is methane, and it is estimated
that 4% of it escapes into the atmosphere during extraction. Because methane is 25 times
stronger than carbon dioxide in terms of trapping heat, the release of this gas is
detrimental to the air quality of surrounding fracking sites.Pollutants increase the
production and long-term lingering of smog, which decreases the availability of clean air
for local residents.
  Millions of litres of water are used in the fracking process, which directly reduces the
amount of clean water available to surrounding residents. When water is not available to
fracking sites locally, it may be transported from other regions, ultimately drawing down
available water from lakes and rivers across the country. Water contamination could also
reduce the overall water supply of regional fracking areas, as the chemicals that are used
in the process have the propensity to leak back into local water supplies.
 In addition to air and water pollution, fracking also increases the potential for oil spills,
which can harm the soil and surrounding vegetation. Fracking may cause earthquakes due
to the high pressure used to extract oil and gas from rock and the storage of excess
wastewater on site. Thus in turn infringing the right to health of the citizens.

Thus the SC is requested to entertain this special leave petition.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

2nd speaker

The counsel is here to content that the decision of High Court is erroneous. The High Court has
granted the company to move on with the fracking process. It is contended that the decision of
High Court was erroneous because of following reasons-

1. No environment impact assessment is done-An Environment Impact Assessment

(hereinafter referred to as EIA) is conducted in order to anticipate the likely consequences of the
project. In this case there has been no reference to the same.

2. Air Pollution caused by the company Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the fundamental
right to live decently and to enjoy clean air. The fracking in the proximity of the residential area
without any appropriate pollution-control equipment is indicative of company’s disregard for the
precautionary norms to be followed for public safety. Thus, violating the right to clean air
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. The honourable High court would not be justified in interfering with a policy decision
The respondent most humbly submits that the Supreme Court has long held that interference into
policy actions is not within the jurisdiction as reiterated in the recent Iodine Salt Case. It has
been held that a writ petition cannot be maintainable if its sole purpose is to question a policy
decision of the Government. The position of law on the matter of policy decisions is quite clear,
from decisions such as BALCO Employees Union case, and a host of other cases. The list is
truly extensive, as the underlying principle is sound in law. Unless there is prima facie evidence
to prove that exercise of discretion has been arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide, the Court
cannot step into the shoes of the Government to decide the validity of a policy. It is a matter of
public policy that the Court not permit litigations on the same issue be raised in perpetuity, as no
public undertaking will ever succeed if such a practice is encouraged.

In this case, the policy decision by the state government has been taken after assessing the
impact on environment and thus analyzing that allowing the company to process with the
fracking would seriously affect the environment.

Thus the judgment of High court was erroneous and arbitrary.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

3rd Speaker

The counsel is here to state before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the The Argo (Regulation and
Development of Pre-Production phase of Shale Gas) Fracking Act, 2017 is not unconstitutional
or arbitrary.

The Act has been drafted keeping in view the right of citizens residing near the area because-
these are indigenous people of Argo whose rights have been infringes. The indigenous people are
considered on same pedestal as Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Caste in India because of their
backwardness, dependence on basic natural resources for life and livelihood and lack of exposure
to civilization. Thus, their rights have also been construed to be safeguarded under Article 244(1)
and the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, in the present case, the
indigenous people of Argo can be considered to be on the same footing as Scheduled Tribes.
Their rights are protected under the Constitution also they have been given special status under
Article 371 D of the constitution.

THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATES COMPANY’S RIGHT TO TRADE

The fundamental freedom of trade and commerce has been enshrined under Article 19(1) (g) of
the Constitution of India. But Restriction on freedom of trade and commerce may include
Prohibition, the restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce may also include total
prohibition or ban. Earlier the cases of Supreme Court were not clear but now it is settled that the
restriction may also mean total prohibition or ban. In the Narendra Kumar’s Case the Supreme
Court reviewed all the earlier cases and held that
“There can be no doubt that Constitution Makers intended the word ‘restriction’ to include
‘prohibition’ also. The contention that a law prohibiting the exercise of a fundamental right is in
case saved and cannot therefore be accepted. It is, however, for the Court to decide whether in a
given case, having regard to the nature of the subject matter and the circumstances of the case,
restriction may reasonably include total prohibition or ban”.
Further in this case, if Fracking has been allowed then, it would infringe Article 21 of the people
residing in Argo by depriving them of the clean air and water hence a ban on fracking is not
arbitrary and could be allowed.
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may be pleased to adjudge and declare the SLP to be maintainable, High
Court decision to be erroneous and The said act to be valid.

Also, the Court may pass any order, writ, direction that it deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good faith. Thank you, your lordship.
RESPONDENT SIDE

1st speaker- May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel __ appearing along with my co-
counsels ___, __ and ____ on behalf of the respondents in the case concerning State of Argo v.
Union of la la land. The counsel has three contentions to submit before this Hon’ble Court. Hope
the lordship is well versed with the facts of the case. With your lordships’ kind permission may
the counsel move on to her contentions.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Special leave petition is not
maintainable. It will not be granted if there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is
done. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to SC rather it confers wide
discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases. Also in the present case, no
substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on pure question of fact which is
entitled to be dismissed. A mere existence of substantial question of law is not sufficient unless
serious injustice of the substantial nature has been occasioned. The Supreme Court, however,
does not grant leave to appeal in criminal matters liberally. It does so only when exceptional and
special circumstances exist, substantial and grave injustice has been done, and the case in
question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed
against, or there has been a departure from legal procedure such as vitiates the whole trial, or if
the findings of fact “were such as shocking” to the judicial conscience of the Court.

In this case also, there has been no gross injustice or any wrong rather by allowing the company
to proceed with fracking the high court has promulgated justice as the oil extracts through
fracking would be used to increase the economic status of the country.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

2nd SPEAKER The Cousel is here to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the decision
of High Court is apt and does not have any gross injustice. The Agro Act is just to gain votes of
the protesters and farmers the ruling party have stepped into the shoes of the center by regulating
the hydrocarbon sector of the State. Such bill is completely against the spirit of the La la land’s
Constitution. The Environmental Impact Assessment sector specific manual sufficiently and
comprehensively deals with all the issues addressed in the ‘The Argo Fracking Act, 2017.’ And
there is no need for the said act. It is most humbly submitted that the government of Argo which
comes within the definition of state under Art. 12, formulated a policy which was later converted
into a legislative enactment. It is humbly submitted that the term ‘law’ includes any ordinances,
order, bye-laws, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of Indies,
the force of law. Therefore it is clear that not only law made by legislature but also an order or
notification which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution would be void. In this particular case, at first instance, the govt. formed a policy and
Hence the law clearly falls within the ambit of Art. 13 (3)(a) of the Constitution. In this case, the
company’s rights have been violated.

In this case-

1. The policy decision and the act is arbitrary as it infringes the rights of company.

2. All the pointers in the said Act has been covered under the Environmental Impact Assessment
sector manual and thus a separate statutory law was unrequited.

Hence the decision of the High Court is apt.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship

3RD SPEAKER

Your lordship, the counsel submits that the Agro act is arbitrary. The fundamental rights of the
indigenous people have not been violated by the fracking since No special right is guaranteed to
them under the Constitution and Article 21 of the Constitution; and company’s right to trade has
been infringed.
No special right guaranteed to the indigenous people under the Constitution
The term “indigenous people” is not recognized in India and so the indigenous people have not
been guaranteed any special status, per se, unless recognized under the Constitution as Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, all the tribals are considered to be indigenous, but all
indigenous people are not considered as tribal. To be safeguarded under Article 244(1) of the
Constitution as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe the President has to recognize the
indigenous people as Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste or the area as the Scheduled area
under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
No violation Article 21 of the Constitution
In the present case, there has been no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. To establish of
the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and test of
reasonableness under Article 19. Hence, despite the fact that life of the indigenous people is
dependent on the forest, the Government not only has to consider the necessity to preserve the
ecology, while disallowing the fracking project, but also has to consider the importance of public
projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people and the revenue generated
from such projects. Therefore, the government had struck a balance to protect the fundamental
right of all the citizens including indigenous population, so it cannot be considered that there has
been violation of Article 21 especially the right to life of indigenous people, since; the action of
the government is guided by public interest.
COMPANY’S RIGHT TO TRADE HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE ACT

Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely. The practice of
a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law. Also, In this case during the 2017
financial year, Ll la land spent 130 billion dollars on annual Oil and Gas imports leading to a
significant cut in its various poverty alleviation programs. It is well recognised that despite
liberalising its Exploration and Petroleum sector almost two decades ago, Lala land has not
completely unlocked its hydrocarbon potential. This is evident from the fact that out of the total
oil and gas consumption of 226. Million Metric Tonnes, only 70.4 Million Metric Tonnes is
produced domestically. However, projects like these will help the country to save substantive
revenue, up to 70 billion dollars per year, over the past two decades. This revenue can be utilised
for community welfare schemes in the project areas. After getting various clearances, including
environment clearance, the Stranger Things Private Limited (project proponent) began finalising
its production phase operations and decided to commercially produce “Shale Gas” through a
traditional fracking process in the region. The company decided to begin multi-well pad drilling
in the area that required 7 million gallons of water per well. Hence this project is to sustain the
economy of la la land and thus in greater interest. Hence by not allowing the company to proceed
the Court would infringe its right to trade.

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may be pleased to adjudge and declare the SLP to be non maintainable,
High Court decision to be not erroneous and The said act to be invalid.

Also, the Court may pass any order, writ, direction that it deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good faith. Thank you, your lordship.