Memorial On Behalf of The Petitioner

TEAM CODE:
DR.ANNASAHEB G.D.BENDALE MEMORIAL

14th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
S.S.MANIYAR LAW COLLEGE, JALGOAN
BEFORE,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDHIA
___________________________________________________________________________
WRIT PETITION NO. /2018
HAMEED KHAN AND OTHERS
(PETITIONER)
V.
UNION OF SINDHIA AND OTHERS
(RESPONDENT)
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDHIA
___________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE

CHIEF JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT OF SINDHIA
AND OTHER PUISINE JUDGES
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………..……….3
A. List Of Cases
B. Books Referred
C. Websites Referred
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….….5
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………..6
4. ISSUES PRESENTED…………………………………………………………………….8
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….9
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………11
7. PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………….18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES
1. Maneka vs. Union of India……………………………………………. AIR 1978 SC 597
2. BandhuaMuktiMorcha vs. Union of India…………………………… AIR 1984 SC 802
3. Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar……………………………………...(1991) 1 SCC 598
4.M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India……………...………………………….AIR 2002 SC 1955
5.Arjun Gopal and others v/s Union of India and others…...…………… (2017) 1 SCC 412
6. State of Maharashtra vs. HimmatbhaiNarbheramRao………..…… AIR 1970 SC 1157
7. Municipal Corpn. Of the City of Ahmedabad v.

Jan MohammadUsmanbhai.........................................………….…….AIR 1986 SC 1205
8. Narendra Kumar vs. Union of India…………………………….……. AIR 1960 SC 430
9.Coverjee vs. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer……………………………. AIR 1954 SC 220
10. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka………………….……(1995) 1 SCC 574
11. State of Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala………………….….. AIR 1957 SC 699

4
BOOKS REFERRED
1. D.D.BASU,COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,WADHWA,

INDIA,2007,8TH EDITION ,VOLUME I AND II.
2. D.D.BASU ,CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS NEXIS, INDIA,2009,8TH

EDITION
3. DATAR,COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,WADHWA,

INDIA,2007,2ND EDITION ,VOLUME I AND II.
4. H.M. SEERVAL,CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA ,UNIVERSAL

PUBLICATION,INDIA,2004,4TH EDITION ,VOLUME I,II,AND III.
5. M.P JAIN,INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ,LEXIS NEXIS,INDIA, 2010, 6TH

EDITION.
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.lexisnexisacademic.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.britannica.com
4. www.environmental-mainstreaming.org
5. www.legalserviceindia.com
6. www.thebluebook.com

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Art 32 of the Constitution of India has been
invoked by the petitioner as Article 21 has been violated.
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo 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 clause ( 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.

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner 1 - Hameed Khan, petitioner 2 –
Gopal Sharma and petitioner 3 – Anil Yadav, who are infants, by their next friends
i.e. by their fathers.
2. Pollution affects all citizens, irrespective of their age. However children are much
more vulnerable to air pollutants as exposure thereto may affect them in various ways,
including aggravation of asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system
breakdown and even cognitive impairment.
3. Air pollution hits its nadir (worst stage) during Diwali time because of indiscriminate
use of firecrackers, which causes increase in harmful particulate matters, such as
PM2.5 or PM10, in the environment at an alarming level causing situation of
emergency.
4. On onset of winter itself, air quality in the region of Asbia is deteriorated and it is
aggravated because of festival/marriage season in which firecrackers, sparkles and
minor explosives are indiscriminately used.

7
5. This has resulted in air pollution going up at alarming levels and making Asbia the
most polluted city in the world where air pollution had gone up to 29 times above the
World Health Organization Standards.
6. Fireworks cause harmful effect on the ambient air and to the lungs, eyes and ears of
the people. Not only that, but the noise of the fireworks also causes extreme nuisance
to citizens particularly the ailing and the aged.
7. Therefore the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court for seeking relief as
pollution creates violation of right to health, violation of provision of different laws
and well established principles.

8
ISSUES PRESENTED
Issue I
Whether fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the petitioner enshrined
under Article 21 has been violated or not?
Issue II
Whether the fundamental right to carry on business, trade or occupation of the respondent
enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) would be violated or not if a ban is imposed on firecrackers?
Issue III
Whether total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers is justified or not?

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. Whether fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the petitioner
enshrined under Article 21 has been violated or not?
Art. 21 includes Right to Good Health as well as Right to Wholesome Environment along
with various other rights. Clean and healthy environment is itself a Fundamental Right.
Burning of firecrackers causes pollution that damages environment and affects health of all
citizens especially children.
As such it violates the right to health as well as right to wholesome environment of the
petitioner, both enshrined under Art. 21.
II. Whether the fundamental right to carry on business, trade or occupation of the
respondent enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) would be violated or not if a ban is
imposed on firecrackers?
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees to all citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
use of this right as mentioned Under Article 19 (6). The phrase “in the interest of general
public” is the main ingredient in Art 19(6) and it includes public health within its ambit.
Since firecrackers endangers life, health, property and environment a reasonable restriction
can be put on it and that would not violate the said fundamental right.

10
III. Whether total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers is justified or not?
The right guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) is not sufficiently broad to encompass activities
which are inherently pernicious or dangerous to society. These are considered to be “res
extra commercium” and there is no fundamental right in their trade or business and the
government is at liberty to regulate through licensing or to prohibit them altogether.
It has been time and again proved that bursting of firecrackers endangers heath, life, property
and environment too. Therefore it is inherently pernicious or dangerous to society and as such
is to be considered res extra commercium. Therefore total prohibition or blanket ban on
fireworks is justified.

11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1
Whether fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the
petitioner enshrined under Article 21 has been violated or not?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that,
Art. 21 provides protection of life and personal liberty. In the landmark judgment of Maneka
vs. Union of India1 the Supreme Court had held that, right to life as enshrined in Art 21
means “something more than mere animal existence” and would include right to live with
human dignity. It would include all those aspects which go to make a man’s life meaningful,
complete and worth living.
The scope of Art. 21 has been expanded over last 50 years and life and liberty now includes
Right to Good Health as well as Right to Wholesome Environment along with various other
rights.2 The Supreme Court of India was one of the first Court to develop the concept of
Right to Healthy Environment as a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.3
In Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar4 the Supreme Court held that Right to Life is a
Fundamental Right under Art.21 of the Constitution and it include the Right to
enjoyment of Pollution Free Water and Air for full enjoyment of life. If anything
endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws a citizen has recourse to
1
AIR 1978 SC 597
2
Datar, Commentary on the constitution of India, Wadhwa, India,2007,2nd edition ,pg. 362
3
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161
4
(1991) 1 SCC 598
12
Art.32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be
detrimental to life.
The Supreme Court has invoked Art.21 to grant relief against the effect of pollution in
environmental matters5 from time to time. Protection of Right to Health has an
inextricable link with clean environment. Clean and healthy environment is itself a
Fundamental Right as held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v/s
Union of India. 6
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that,
i) Burning of firecrackers causes pollution which affects all citizens irrespective
of their age. However, children are much more vulnerable to air pollutants as
exposure thereto may affect them in various ways including aggravation of
asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and even
cognitive impairment.
ii) Manufacturing of firecrackers generates a lot of waste which adds to pollution
as sufficient measures are not taken to deal with this waste. Number of deaths
as well as injuries to person are caused every year due to poor storage which
results in occasional accidents, likewise the burning of these crackers also
results in injuries.
iii) Air Pollution hits its nadir i.e. worst stage during Diwali time because of
indiscriminate use of firecrackers, which causes increase in harmful
particulate matter such as PM2.5 and PM10 in the environment at an alarming
level causing situation of emergency. This has resulted in air pollution going
5
Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Samiti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2060: (1990) 4 SCC 449;
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 2426
6
(2001) 3 SCC 756: AIR 2002 SC 1955
13
up at alarming level. The Air pollution had gone up to 29 times above World
Health Organization (WHO) standards. Studies by C.P.C.B (Central Pollution
Control Board) had categorically found that burning of crackers during diwali
was contributing to air as well as noise pollution in an alarming manner.7
All of which was categorically relied upon in the recent judgment of Arjun Gopal
and others v/s Union of India and others8. Also in the said case, Hon’ble SC had
directed the CPCB to study and prepare a report on the harmful effects of the
fireworks’. The CPCB in its report of October 2017 titled “Status of Pollution
Abatement Measures” had mentioned the following health hazards:
a) The children breathe toxic air and suffer from nasal irritation and throat congestion.
b) The smoke also irritates the eyes causing tears and redness.
c) Bursting crackers may increase blood pressure and aggravate heart disease.
d) Nausea, headache and giddiness are common effects of bursting crackers.
e) Lung infections such as coughing, sneezing, respiratory disorders like asthma, wheezing
often get severe during Deepawali festival.
Besides the above, lack of safety measures also cause serious accidents varying from serious
burns and injuries to death in some cases.
Therefore it is humbly submitted before this Hon’be Court that the manufacturing and
bursting of firecrackers adversely affects the health as well as the environment and as such
violates the petitioner’s right to good health and right to wholesome environment, both of
which are enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
7
Diwali Monitoring Report, 2017, C.P.C.B.
8
(2017) 1 SCC 412
14
Issue 2
Whether the fundamental right to carry on business, trade or occupation of
the respondent enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) would be violated or not if
a ban is imposed on firecrackers?
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees to all citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
use of this right as mentioned Under Article 19 (6). The restrictions laid for right in Article
19(1)(g) as defined in Article 19(6) are that:
A) State shall make any law imposing the rights provided under Article 19(g) in interest
of general public.
B) Also State shall make any law relating to professional or technical qualifications
necessary for practicing a profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business,
C) And also law in relation to creation of State Monopoly.
The phrase “in the interest of general public” is the main ingredient in Art 19(6) and
has come to be considered in several decisions. It has been held in various cases that it
would include within its ambit interests like public health and morality.9
The same was held in the case of Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai10 that it would include
“public health along with public order, public security and morals…”
9
State of Maharashtra vs. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1157
15
The reports of the CPCB as relied in the case of Arjun Gopal and others v/s Union of
India and others11 specifically highlights the harmful effects of bursting of firecrackers.
It also enlists numerous ways as to how it is harmful to the general public. It not only
affects the environment but also impacts the health of public at large.
“The city of Asbia is already the most polluted city in the world and has air
pollution 29 times above the WHO standards.”
The bursting of firecrackers also endangers lives. Fireworks industry is a hazardous
industry, from the place of manufacture, transportation and storage of fireworks is a
risk to life and property. The lack of safety measures also cause serious accidents
varying from serious burns and injuries to death in some cases every year.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that,
The manufacturing and bursting of fireworks is dangerous to life, property,
environment and overall public health which is encompassed in the phrase “in interest
of general public”.
Since the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business
under Art. 19 (1)(g) is not absolute and reasonable restrictions can be imposed “in interest
of general public” that includes “public health”, therefore a ban on firecrackers is a
reasonable restriction and as such no right of the respondent to carry on business, trade or
occupation of the respondent enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) is violated by it.
10
Municipal Corpn. Of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammad Usmanbhai AIR 1986 SC 1205
11
IBID
16
Issue 3
Whether total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers
is justified or not?
The right guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) is not sufficiently broad to encompass
activities which are inherently pernicious or dangerous to society. These are
considered to be “res extra commercium” and there is no fundamental right in their
trade or business and the government is at liberty to regulate through licensing or to
prohibit them altogether.12
It has been time and again proved that bursting of firecrackers endangers heath, life, property
and environment too. The CPCB has stated in its report as mentioned earlier various harmful
effects of manufacturing and bursting of firecrackers.
Firecracker noise is an impulsive noise and is hazardous. Bursting of firecrackers near
the hearing vicinity can lead sometimes to non recoverable hearing loss. Firecrackers
are made of chemicals / metallic agents some of which are toxic. The children breathe
toxic air and suffer from nasal irritation and throat congestion. The smoke also
irritates the eyes cause tears and redness. Bursting crackers may increase blood
pressure and aggravate heart disease. Nausea, headache and giddiness are common
effects of bursting crackers. Lung infections such as coughing, sneezing, respiratory
12
Narendra Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430,
Coverjee vs. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer, AIR 1954 SC 220
17
disorders like asthma, wheezing often get severe during Deepawali festival. The
pollution hazards such as the toxic smoke causes a lot of discomfort in breathing.
Besides the above, lack of safety measures also cause serious accidents varying from
serious burns and injuries to death in some cases.13
Thus it is inherently pernicious as well as dangerous to society, therefore it is also “res extra
commercium” and hence there is no fundamental right in this trade or business and as such it
can be prohibited altogether.
Trades which have reprehensible moral and social effect are categorized as “res extra
commercium” and do not constitute business as contemplated by Art. 19(1)(g).14
Art. 19 (1) (g) does not entitle any person to carry on trade or business in immoral or
criminal activities. These are classified as “res extra commercial”. Since liquor is
intoxicating, injurious and dangerous to heath, trade or business in liquor is “res extra
commercial”. There is no fundamental right to carry on such trade or business and it
can be completely prohibited. These principles were set out by the Supreme Court in
the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka.15
Similarly, the manufacturing and bursting of firecrackers too is intoxicating, injurious and
dangerous to health and hence it is “res extra commercium” and as laid down in the cases
mentioned above and therefore it can be completely prohibited.
Therefore it is humbly submitted that a total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers is
justified.
13
CPCB report on Firecrackers, October 2017
14
State of Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699
15
(1995) 1 SCC 574
18
PRAYER
In light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the provisions of the
Constitution applied and arguments advanced; and in light of the scientific studies
relating to the issue referred to, the Petitioners most humbly prayed that:
1) The fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the petitioner
enshrined under Article 21 has been violated.
2) The fundamental right to carry on business, trade or occupation of the respondent
enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) would not be violated if a ban is imposed on the
firecrackers.
3) To prohibit bursting of firecrackers.
The Court may make any other such order as it may deem fit in terms of justice, equity
and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness the respondent shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Respectfully Submitted
S/d ______________
Counsel for Petitioner

Memorial On Behalf of The Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Memorial On Behalf of The Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 On Behalf of The Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:

DR.ANNASAHEB G.D.BENDALE MEMORIAL

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDHIA

WRIT PETITION NO. /2018

HAMEED KHAN AND OTHERS

UNION OF SINDHIA AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDHIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. Maneka vs. Union of India……………………………………………. AIR 1978 SC 597

2. BandhuaMuktiMorcha vs. Union of India…………………………… AIR 1984 SC 802

3. Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar……………………………………...(1991) 1 SCC 598

4.M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India……………...………………………….AIR 2002 SC 1955

6. State of Maharashtra vs. HimmatbhaiNarbheramRao………..…… AIR 1970 SC 1157

7. Municipal Corpn. Of the City of Ahmedabad v.

8. Narendra Kumar vs. Union of India…………………………….……. AIR 1960 SC 430

9.Coverjee vs. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer……………………………. AIR 1954 SC 220

10. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka………………….……(1995) 1 SCC 574

11. State of Bombay vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala………………….….. AIR 1957 SC 699

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. D.D.BASU,COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,WADHWA,

2. D.D.BASU ,CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LEXIS NEXIS, INDIA,2009,8TH

3. DATAR,COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,WADHWA,

4. H.M. SEERVAL,CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA ,UNIVERSAL

5. M.P JAIN,INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ,LEXIS NEXIS,INDIA, 2010, 6TH

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

invoked by the petitioner as Article 21 has been violated.

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

i.e. by their fathers.

including aggravation of asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system

breakdown and even cognitive impairment.

use of firecrackers, which causes increase in harmful particulate matters, such as

PM2.5 or PM10, in the environment at an alarming level causing situation of

aggravated because of festival/marriage season in which firecrackers, sparkles and

minor explosives are indiscriminately used.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

World Health Organization Standards.

to citizens particularly the ailing and the aged.

pollution creates violation of right to health, violation of provision of different laws

and well established principles.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

under Article 21 has been violated or not?

Whether total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers is justified or not?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

I. Whether fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the petitioner

enshrined under Article 21 has been violated or not?

citizens especially children.

petitioner, both enshrined under Art. 21.

respondent enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) would be violated or not if a ban is

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

III. Whether total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers is justified or not?

government is at liberty to regulate through licensing or to prohibit them altogether.

is to be considered res extra commercium. Therefore total prohibition or blanket ban on

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Whether fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the