Team Code: C080

CELEBRATION OF 70TH CONSTITUTION DAY MOOT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF PURABDESH

IN THE MATTER OF:

KUDRETI KHETI ABHIYAN (PETITIONER)

V.

UNION OF PURABDESH (RESPONDENT)

W.P NO. ______/ 2020

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PURABDESH
UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONST. OF PURABDESH

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 -Memorial for Respondent-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................... X
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................. XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................... XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................... XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................ 1

1. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE AND VIOLATIVE OF

RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF FARMERS. ............................................................................................... 1

1.1 THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION SATISFIES THE REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST

1
1.1.1 THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS BASED ON AN INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA ................................ 1
1.1.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION HAS A RATIONAL NEXUS WITH THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE
ACHIEVED ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT ARBITRARY ...................................................................... 3

1.2.1 THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ... 3
1.2.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION COMPLIES WITH DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT ................................. 4
1.2.3 THAT THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY IS REASONABLE ............................................................... 4
1.3 THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS PROPORTIONATE ..................................................................... 5

2. THAT THE NOTIFICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD OF THE
FARMERS. ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 THAT THE NOTIFICATION’S BAN ON CRB IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(G).... 6

2.1.1 THAT CRB ADVERSELY AFFECTS PUBLIC HEALTH ................................................................ 6

2.1.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION PASSES THE REASONABLE RESTRICTION TEST ............................... 7
2.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 ................................................. 8

II
 -Memorial for Respondent-

2.2.1 THAT THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO TRADE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC
HEALTH ............................................................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2 THAT THE DOCTRINE OF LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST SUPPORTS THE NOTIFICATION ............ 10

3. THAT THE STATE HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE
ENVIRONMENT. ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 THE STATE HAS INTRODUCED ADEQUATE REFORMS AND INTERVENTIONS IN

AGRICULTURE, SO AS TO ORGANIZE IT ALONG ENVIRONMENTALLY SCIENTIFIC LINES AND

TACKLE AGRICULTURE-BASED POLLUTION. ................................................................................ 11

3.1.1 THAT THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN AND IMPLEMENTED VARIOUS MEASURES TO CONTROL
AND PROVIDE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO CRB. ............................................................................. 11

3.1.2 THAT THE STATE HAS INTRODUCED BROADER LONG-TERM CHANGES IN AGRICULTURE
POLICIES ALONG ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND LINES. ...................................................................... 12

3.2 THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN VARIOUS MEASURES TO REMEDY AIR POLLUTION AND
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, IN GENERAL. ................................................................................ 12

Prayer ......................................................................................................................................... XIV

III
 -Memorial for Respondent-

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

¶ Paragraph

Art. Article

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

CRB Crop Residue Burning

CRM Crop Residue Management

EPA, 1986 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control)

EPCA
Authority

GR Green Revolution

ILC International Law Commission

KPP Krishi Pradhan Pradesh

MSP Minimum Support Price

NCR National Capital Region

Organisation for Economic Co-operation &

OECD
Development

PM Particulate Matter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UoI Union of India

IV
 -Memorial for Respondent-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 No. 29, Acts of Parliament, (1986). ......................... 7

SUPREME COURT CASES

1. A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. v. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 SCC 320 5
2. Abdul Hakim v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448 .................................................................... 7
3. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722. ....................................................................... 3
4. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397 ................................................................... 10
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24 ................................................................... 1
6. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625.......................................................... 8
7. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sunil Bansal, (2009) 10 SCC 446 ........................... 2, 12
8. Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191 ................................................................ 1
9. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 ............................................... 6
10. D.S. Nakara v. UoI, AIR 1983 SC 130 ...................................................................................... 1
11. Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145 ............................................................. 1
12. Gauri Shanker v. UoI, (1994) 6 SCC 349 .................................................................................. 1
13. IMF Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Government, (1998) 8 SCC 22 .................................................. 7
14. Jasbir Kaur v. UoI, (2003) 8 SCC 720 ....................................................................................... 2
15. Krishnan Kakanth v. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128 .......................................................... 8
16. Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI, (2011) 7 SCC 338 .................................................... 5
17. Lakshmi Khandsari v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 600 ........................................................ 7, 8
18. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 (1) ALT 251 .................................................................. 10
19. M.C. Mehta v. UoI, (1992) 1 SCC 358 ...................................................................................... 6
20. M.C. Mehta v. UoI, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1692 ...................................................................... 4
21. M.C. Mehta v. UoI, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 29 .......................................................................... 4
22. M.J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka, 1995 6 SCC 289 .............................................................. 7, 9
23. Maneka Gandhi v. UoI, (1978) 2 SCR 621 ................................................................................ 8
24. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan. Mohammed Usmanbhai, AIR 1986
SC 1205 ...................................................................................................................................... 6
25. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 ...................................... 8, 9

V
 -Memorial for Respondent-

26. Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, (2003) 11 SCC 614 ...................................................... 5
27. Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. UoI, (1962) 3 SCR 72 .................................................................. 1
28. Research Foundation for Science v. UoI, (2005) 13 SCC 186. ................................................. 3
29. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1988 SC 2187 ............ 9, 10, 14
30. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B., (1987) 2 SCC 295......................................................... 6
31. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 Supp (2) SCR 305............................................ 6, 10
32. Sanaboina Satyanarayana v. State. of A.P., (2003) 10 SCC 78 ................................................. 2
33. Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188 ............................................................. 4
34. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 834 .......................... 8
35. State of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196 ....................................................................... 7
36. State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn., AIR 2013 SC 2582 .................... 9
37. State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh, AIR 1967 SC 212 ................................................................ 1
38. State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10 ...................................................................... 1
39. State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 ..................................................... 7
40. State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 ................................................................ 1
41. State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose, 1954 SCR 587 ............................................................... 7
42. UoI v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437................................................................. 3
43. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. UoI, (1996) 5 SCC 647 .............................................. 3, 13

HIGH COURT CASES

1. Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1998
Cal 8
2. Hawkers Merchants Welfare Association v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 2000
(102(2)) BOMLR 382 9
3. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Assn. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, 2006 1 SCC OnLine Mad
1192 6

NGT CASES

1. Ganga Lalwani v. UoI, O.A. 451/2018, decided on 15.10.2019 .......................................... 4, 11

Goodwill Plastics Industries v. U.T. of Chandigarh, O.A. 26/2013, decided on 08.08.2013 ......... 9

VI
 -Memorial for Respondent-

2. Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority, O.A
118/2013, decided on 10.12.2015 .......................................................................................... 2, 4

GOVT. REPORTS

1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL METEOROLOGY, PUNE, MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES, AIR

QUALITY FORECAST- DELHI CITY (2019) ................................................................................... 2
2. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, REPORT ON NATIONAL CLEAN AIR
PROGRAM (2018). ..................................................................................................................... 13
3. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, SECOND BIENNIAL UPDATE
REPORT TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (2018). . 12
4. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF THE SCHEME "PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL
MECHANISATION FOR IN-SITU MANAGEMENT OF CROP RESIDUE IN STATES OF PUNJAB,
HARYANA, UTTAR PRADESH AND NCT OF DELHI” (2019) ...................................................... 11
5. STEERING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH RELATED ISSUES ON AIR POLLUTION, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE, REPORT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH RELATED ISSUES ON

AIR POLLUTION (Aug., 2015) ..................................................................................................... 2

OTHER REPORTS

1. COUNCIL ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND WATER, PADDY RESIDUE BURNING IN PUNJAB:

UNDERSTANDING FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVES AND RURAL AIR POLLUTION (2019)................ 6, 7
2. INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, INDIA BHARAT STAGE VI EMISSION
STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................ 13
3. ORF, THE HERCULEAN TASK OF IMPROVING AIR QUALITY: THE CASE OF DELHI AND NCR
(2018). ................................................................................................................................ 7, 14
4. THE ENERGY AND RESOURCE INSTITUTE, CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT: SOLUTION TO
ACHIEVE BETTER AIR QUALITY (2020). ................................................................................. 12
5. THE ENERGY AND RESOURCE INSTITUTE, GREEN GROWTH AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN

PUNJAB (2015)........................................................................................................................ 12

ARTICLES

VII
 -Memorial for Respondent-

1. Adrian A. Lopez et al., The role of social influence in crop residue management: Evidence
from Northern India, 169 ECOLOGICAL ECON. (2020). ........................................................... 4
2. Daniel H. Culworth et al., Quantifying the influence of agricultural fires in Northwest India
on urban air pollution in Delhi, India, 13 ENVTL. RES. LETTERS (Mar. 30, 2018). ................ 2
3. Jona Razzaque, Application of Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Cases, 13 J.
ENVTL. L. 221, 227 (2001). ................................................................................................... 3
4. Tina Adler, Respiratory health: Measuring the health effects of crop burning, 118 (11)
ENVIRON. HEALTH PERSPECT. 475 (2010) ................................................................................ 7

NEWS ARTICLE

1. Amid lockdown, India switches to BS-VI emission norms, THE HINDU (Apr. 2, 2020) ......... 13
2. CPCB issues notices to civic bodies for failing to tackle pollution issue, THE HINDU (Dec. 1,
2018) ...................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Delhi's air quality 'very poor', CPCB issues notice over waste burning at Shahdara drain,
THE OUTLOOK (Dec. 6, 2018) ................................................................................................ 14
4. India's stubble burning air pollution causes USD 30 billion economic losses, health risks,
SCIENCE DAILY (Mar. 4, 2019).. .............................................................................................. 5
5. Samyak Pandey, Nudge didn’t work, agriculture ministry now has a plan to force paddy
farmers to diversify, THE PRINT (Jan. 7, 2020 ....................................................................... 12
6. Sarita C Singh, Central Pollution Control Board issues notices to 14 power plants,
ECONOMIC TIMES (Mar. 18, 2020); ........................................................................................ 14

GOVERNMENT POLICY

1. DIRECTIONS ISSUED, EPCA .................................................................................................... 14

2. Environment Impact Assessment (Amendment) Notification, 2016, S.O. 3999(E). ............... 5
3. GRADED RESPONSE ACTION PLAN, ENVIRONMENT POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (2017).
............................................................................................................................................... 13
4. GUIDELINES FOR CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS, CENTRAL POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD (2018) ........................................................................................................ 13
5. GUIDELINES FOR SCRAPPING OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN DELHI, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT OF

NCT OF DELHI (2018). ........................................................................................................... 13

6. HARYANA BIO-ENERGY POLICY, NEW & RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPARTMENT (2018)........... 12

VIII
 -Memorial for Respondent-

7. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF CROP RESIDUES

(2014) ................................................................................................................................ 11
8. PROGRAMME ON ENERGY FROM URBAN, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL WASTES/RESIDUES
AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY................ 11

9. RASTRIYA KRISHI VIKAS YOJANA: OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES, MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE (2017) ........................................................................................................ 12

MISCELLANEOUS

1. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), annex I (Aug. 12, 1992 ........................... 9

BOOKS

1. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1219 (Jasti Chelameswar & Dama Seshadri
Naidu, eds., 8th ed., 2018). .............................................................................................. 1, 8
2. Tarunabh Khaitan, Equality: Legislative Review under Article 14, in THE OXFORD
HANDBOOK OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION (Sujit Choudhary et al., 2016). ....................... 1

IX
 -Memorial for Respondent-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent is appearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Purabdesh, in a Public Interest Litigation.

X
 -Memorial for Respondent-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. THE PARTIES
The Republic of Purabdesh is the second most populous and the fifth largest country in the
world. The Union Territory of Dilprastha is the capital of the country. Kudreti Kheti Abhiyan
(hereinafter, “KK Abhiyan”) is a Non-Governmental Organisation working for farmers’ rights
for the past 15 years, in the Krishi Pradhan Pradesh (hereinafter, “KPP”) region of Purabdesh.
II. DILPRASTHA’S AIR POLLUTION
In the last four decades, the city of Dilprastha has seen massive infrastructural development. The
city has seen an exponential rise in its population, number of vehicles plying on the roads and the
number of industries in and around it. Pollution has also seen an exponential rise in the city and
it has consistently been ranked amongst the three most polluted cities of the world.
III. AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN KPP
60% of the population of Purabesh works in the agriculture sector. Areas of Dilprastha, along
with the surrounding states of Rajputana, Unnati Pradesh, Gharyana and Sindhujab, constitute
the KPP region. This area contributes approximately 40 to 45% of the total food grain production
of the country. The harvesting techniques prevalent in the region are such that they leave behind
large quantities of straw residue in the field and these are then, burnt to clear the field for the
next season. This leads to the emission of noxious gases, which are harmful for the environment
as well as public health.
IV. OCTOBER, 2019
In October 2019, the Air Quality Index fell to dangerous levels of ‘Severe’ and ‘Hazardous’
leading to 50 deaths due to respiratory problems and causing a shutdown of major economic
activities. Accordingly, a public health emergency was declared in Dilprastha. The Odd-Even
Scheme was rolled out and industrial activity suspended. The Central Government also issued a
Notification, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, putting a ban on stubble burning and
imposing a fine of 1 lakh rupees per incidence of stubble burning as well as the withdrawal of
benefits under the Minimum Support Price (hereinafter, “MSP”) Scheme.

XI
 -Memorial for Respondent-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-I-
WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE AND AMOUNTS TO
VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE FARMERS TO EQUALITY ?

-II-
WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE
FARMERS TO LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD?

-III-
WHETHER THE STATE HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE
THE ENVIRONMENT?

XII
 -Memorial for Respondent-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE AND DOES NOT AMOUNT
TO A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE FARMERS TO EQUALITY .

It is submitted that the Notification is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Firstly, it
makes a reasonable classification, with the objective of reducing air pollution and improving the
public health emergency in Dilprastha. Secondly, it is well reasoned and non-arbitrary as it is
consistent with key principles of environmental law. Lastly, it is proportionate according to the
exigency of the situation.
II. THAT THE NOTIFICATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF THE FARMERS TO LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD.

It is submitted that the Notification is not violative of Art. 19(1)(g) and Art. 21 of the
Constitution. Firstly, it imposes reasonable restriction as sanctioned under Art. 19(6) in the
interest of public health and environment protection. Secondly, the Notification has been issued
through a procedure established by law. Thirdly, the larger public interest is served through the
Notification.
III. THAT THE STATE HAS NOT FAILED IN ITS DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND

IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT.

It is submitted that the State has fulfilled its obligation to protect and improve the environment.
Firstly, the State has introduced short-term and long-term reforms and interventions in
agriculture, so as to organize it along environmentally sound lines and tackle agriculture-based
pollution. Secondly, the State has undertaken various measures to remedy air pollution and
protect the environment, in general.

XIII
 -Memorial for Respondent-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE AND

VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO EQUALITY OF FARMERS.

[¶1]. On a preliminary basis, the Respondent respectfully submits that there is a presumption in
favour of constitutionality of a state action and the burden of proof lies on the person who
challenges it.1 Art. 14 of the Constitution of Purabdesh (hereinafter, “Constitution”) guarantees
equality and equal protection of laws to all citizens. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble
Court that the Notification in question does not violate the right to equality of farmers as firstly,
it meets the requirements of the reasonable classification test [1.1]; secondly, it is not
arbitrary[1.2]; and lastly, it is proportionate[1.3].
1.1 THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION SATISFIES THE REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST

[¶2]. It is submitted that equality under Art. 14 does not mean that the same law should be
applicable to all persons, irrespective of difference of circumstances. 2 Art. 14 forbids class
legislation, but allows reasonable classification. 3 Such classification must be founded on
substantial differences that distinguish persons inside the group from those outside (Intelligible
Differentia) and must also bear a rational relation to the object of the state action (Rational
Nexus).4 The Respondent submits that the Notification makes a reasonable classification, for the
purpose of improving the public health in Dilprastha.
1.1.1 That the Notification is based on an Intelligible Differentia
[¶3]. The Supreme Court (hereinafter, “SC”) has previously observed that while classifying
under Art. 14, the State need not follow mathematical precision and should be practical in its
approach.5 The SC has held that classification may be based on geographical and territorial
considerations.6 The Notification seeks to eliminate crop residue burning (hereinafter, “CRB”)

1
Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. UoI, (1962) 3 SCR 72; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24.
2
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1219 (Jasti Chelameswar & Dama Seshadri Naidu, eds., 8th ed., 2018).
3
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145; Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 1955 AIR 191.
4
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75; D.S. Nakara v. UoI, AIR 1983 SC 130; Tarunabh Khaitan,
Equality: Legislative Review under Article 14, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION (Sujit
Choudhary et al., 2016).
5
Gauri Shanker v. UoI, (1994) 6 SCC 349.
6
State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10; State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh, AIR 1967 SC 212.

1
 -Memorial for Respondent-

by the farmers working in the National Capital Region (hereinafter, “NCR”). Thus, the
intelligible differentia constituted for the purposes of the Notification, is between farmers
involved in CRB in NCR and elsewhere. It is submitted that these farmers are part of a larger
group of polluters consisting of the several sources contributing to Dilprastha’s air pollution.
However, the Respondent also submits that the farmers in NCR constitute a ‘distinct, but
separate’ group within this larger group.7 It is also submitted that the SC has previously upheld
differential standards for similarly placed polluters.8 Thus, such classification shall be
permissible, if it is rational and necessitated in the larger interest of the society.9
1.1.2 That the Notification has a Rational Nexus with the object sought to be achieved
[¶4]. It is submitted that in the months of October and November, the air quality of Dilprastha
declines significantly 10 and amongst the major causes of this decline is CRB near Dilprastha. 11
This decline in air quality is hazardous for the health of people in NCR causing breathing
problems, aggravating existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease. 12 It is
submitted that NCR was constituted due to the interlinkages between Dilprastha and its nearby
districts.13 Therefore, due to the close physical proximity of these areas with Dilprastha, CRB
within them heavily impacts its Air Quality Index.14 It is hence, essential to control and eliminate
CRB, especially in these areas, in the larger interest of the public’s health. Thus, it is submitted
that there is a clear nexus between the classification and the objective of the Notification.

7
Jasbir Kaur v. UoI, (2003) 8 SCC 720.
8
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sunil Bansal, (2009) 10 SCC 446.
9
Sanaboina Satyanarayana v. State. of A.P., (2003) 10 SCC 78.
10
Compromis, ¶ 18; Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority, O.A
118/2013, decided on 10.12.2015
11
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL METEOROLOGY, PUNE, MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES, AIR QUALITY FORECAST-
DELHI CITY (2019); Leah Burrows, Agricultural fires can double Delhi pollution during peak burning season,
HARV. JOHN A. PAULSON SCH. ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCI., (Mar. 30, 2018).
12
Compromis, ¶ 20; STEERING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH RELATED ISSUES ON AIR POLLUTION, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE, REPORT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH RELATED ISSUES ON AIR POLLUTION
(Aug., 2015).
13
Compromis, ¶ 8.
14
Daniel H. Culworth et al., Quantifying the influence of agricultural fires in Northwest India on urban air pollution
in Delhi, India, 13 ENVTL. RES. LETTERS (Mar. 30, 2018).

2
 -Memorial for Respondent-

1.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS NOT ARBITRARY

[¶5]. Art. 14 also serves as a guarantee against arbitrary action.15 The test for determining
whether or not a state action is arbitrary is to “check if there is any discernible principle
emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness”.16
It is submitted that the Notification is reasonable and in line with the key principles of
environmental law. The Public Trust Doctrine creates a positive obligation on the Government to
take action for the effective management of natural resources.17 In line with this obligation and
the constitutional mandate, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 18 (hereinafter, “EPA, 1986”)
enables the Central Government to take all measures necessary for protecting the environment
and preventing environmental pollution. It is for the fulfillment of these legal obligations that the
Central Government issued the Notification.
1.2.1 That the Notification is in accordance with principles of environmental law
[¶6]. It is submitted that a discernible principle emerges from the Notification, as it is based on
the Polluter Pays Principle, which has been accepted as part of our law by the SC 19. This
principle states that national authorities should promote the internalization of environmental
costs, by ensuring that the polluter bears the cost of pollution caused. 20 The Court has stated that
this principle does not allow polluters to pollute and later, pay for the damage caused. 21 The
Notification is also in line with the Precautionary Principle which requires the State to anticipate,
prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation, even in case of scientific
uncertainty.22
[¶7]. In accordance with these principles, the Notification seeks to deter farmers from CRB
and requires them to internalize the environmental costs of the same, through the use of

15
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
16
UoI v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437.
17
Jona Razzaque, Application of Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Cases, 13 J. ENVTL. L. 221, 227
(2001).
18
Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986.
19
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. UoI, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
20
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N.
Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), annex I (Aug. 12, 1992).
21
Research Foundation for Science v. UoI, (2005) 13 SCC 186.
22
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UoI, (1995) 5 SCC 647.

3
 -Memorial for Respondent-

alternative means of Crop Residue Management (hereinafter, “CRM”). The ban on CRB was
imposed several years ago and has been reiterated by the Courts numerous times. This has
however, made minimal impact on the agriculture sector and the practice has gone on unabated. 23
Dilprastha has been consistently ranked in the top three most polluted cities in the World Air
Quality Reports.24 Thus, it was essential to levy heavy penalties in order to create the deterrent
effect required, given that deterrence is necessary to bring a behavioural change within farmers,
and behavioral factors have been noted by researchers to be a major reason for continued CRB.25
1.2.2 That the Notification complies with directions of the Court
[¶8]. For an action to be arbitrary, it must be non-rational and done capriciously. 26 In this case,
however, Courts have condemned the practice of CRB, due to its adverse effects on public health
and have accordingly, directed the State to ensure the elimination of this practice.27 They have
also directed the State to fine the defaulting farmers, in order to ensure compliance. 28 The Court
has held that farmers cannot excuse themselves by contending that they lack adequate time
between crop cycles and put the life of sizeable populations at risk.29 The National Green
Tribunal (hereinafter, “NGT”) has also directed the State to interpret the MSP scheme as a
disincentive and deny the same to farmers involved in CRB.30 Thus, it is submitted that the
Notification has not been issued capriciously, without adequate determining principle but, in
accordance with Court directions.
1.2.3 That the quantum of penalty is reasonable
[¶9]. It is submitted that the fine imposed by the Notification is in accordance with the
maximum fine prescribed by S.15 of the EPA, 1986. It is submitted that every ton of crop residue

23
Ganga Lalwani v. UoI, O.A. 451/2018, decided on 15.10.2019.
24
Compromis, ¶ 10.
25
Adrian A. Lopez et al., The role of social influence in crop residue management: Evidence from Northern India,
169 ECOLOGICAL ECON. (2020).
26
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188.
27
Vikrant Kumar Tongad v. Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority, O.A 118/2013, decided on
10.12.2015; Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) v. UoI, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10676; M.C. Mehta v.
UoI, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 29.
28
Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) v. UoI, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9248; Vikrant Kumar Tongad v.
Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority, O.A 118/2013, decided on 10.12.2015.
29
M.C. Mehta v. UoI, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1692.
30
Ganga Lalwani v. UoI, O.A. 666/2018, decided on 01.10.2019.

4
 -Memorial for Respondent-

burnt generates 0.747 kg of PM10 and 0.672 kg of PM2.5 particles.31 Thus, CRB is an inherently
hazardous activity, capable of causing adverse health effects and has severely impacted the
economy and health of citizens within NCR.32 The measure of deterrence warranted to
discourage the practice is, therefore, proportionately high. Notifications previously notified
under the EPA, 1986, have imposed additional penalties (such as blacklisting of offender) to
ensure deterrence.33
[¶10]. It is submitted that ‘mere hardship’ cannot be a ground for declaring a law invalid, if
otherwise the rule appears to be just, fair and reasonable. 34 It is humbly submitted that the
present Notification is rational, well-reasoned and hence, not arbitrary.
1.3 THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS PROPORTIONATE
[¶11]. The SC has held that the doctrine of proportionality must be applied at the time of
judicial review of environmental matters. 35 The issues to be considered for the same are:
consideration of all relevant factors; influence of any extraneous factors; compliance with the
legislative policy governing the law; compliance with the principles of sustainable
development.36
[¶12]. It is submitted that as aforementioned, the Notification is consistent with the provisions
of the EPA, 1986; principles of environmental law and Court orders. The State has taken all
relevant factors into consideration and has taken a decision keeping in mind the exigency of the
situation and the larger public interest; extraneous factors have not influenced the decision.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Notification is proportionate to the gravity of the exigency.
[¶13]. Lastly, the State submits that the Notification is in accordance with the Constitutional
policy, which provides for collective responsibility of citizens for the socio-environmental
development of the country. 37 The Constitution, under Art. 51A(g), imposes a fundamental duty

31
Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) v. UoI, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10676.
32
India's stubble burning air pollution causes USD 30 billion economic losses, health risks, SCIENCE DAILY (Mar.
4, 2019).
33
Environment Impact Assessment (Amendment) Notification, 2016, S.O. 3999(E).
34
Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, (2003) 11 SCC 614; A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd.
v. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 SCC 320.
35
Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI, (2011) 7 SCC 338.
36
Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI, (2011) 7 SCC 338.
37
Compromis, ¶13.

5
 -Memorial for Respondent-

on every citizen to protect and improve the environment. 38 The sanctity of this duty has been
reaffirmed by the Courts, and has been given increasing prominence over time. 39 The term
‘environment’ has been interpreted to include a ‘hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance’. 40
It is, thus the duty of every citizen to maintain a clean and hygienic environment. Thus, the State
submits that the Notification is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
2. THAT THE NOTIFICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND
LIVELIHOOD OF THE FARMERS.

[¶14]. It is humbly submitted that the extant notification issued by the Central Government
under the EPA41 is not violative of right to life and livelihood of the farmers. Therefore it is
submitted that the blanket ban on CRB is not violative of Art.19(1)(g) [2.1], or Art. 21 [2.2].
2.1 THAT THE NOTIFICATION’S BAN ON CRB IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(G).

[¶15]. As per Art. 19(6), reasonable restrictions can be sanctioned in public interest and can be
imposed on the right to carry on trade, occupation or profession and the purport of this
expression in public interest “extends to public order, public health…and the objects mentioned
in Part IV.”42 The phrase ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes intelligent care and deliberation that
is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. 43
2.1.1 That CRB adversely affects public health
[¶16]. Public health is under serious jeopardy due to CRB in NCR.44 According to estimates,
“one tonne of straw releases 3 kg of particulate matter (PM), 60 kg CO, 1,460 kg CO2, 199 kg
ash, and 2 kg of SO2.”45 Furthermore, the total deaths due to PM2.5 emissions, between 1998 and

38
INDIA CONST. 51A
39
RLEK v. State of U.P., 1985 AIR 652; Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B., (1987) 2 SCC 295; M.C. Mehta v.
UoI, (1992) 1 SCC 358; Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 Supp (2) SCR 305.
40
Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Assn. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, 2006 1 SCC OnLine Mad 1192.
41
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 No. 29, Acts of Parliament, (1986).
42
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan. Mohammed Usmanbhai, AIR 1986 SC 1205.
43
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118.
44
Compromis, ¶ 21.

45
COUNCIL ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND WATER, PADDY RESIDUE BURNING IN PUNJAB: UNDERSTANDING
FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVES AND RURAL AIR POLLUTION (2019).

6
 -Memorial for Respondent-

2015, as a result of CRB, were 66,200.46 Another study indicated that the air quality in
Dilprastha is equivalent to smoking 7.7 cigarettes a day.47 The smoke produced by CRB is
reported to have a lasting effect on children’s lung function. 48 Therefore, the impugned
notification seeks to protect public interest by safeguarding against the deteriorating health
condition in the NCR.
2.1.2 That the Notification passes the reasonable restriction test
[¶17]. The reasonable restriction test, as per judicial precedents, entails the existence of “a
legitimate goal; a close nexus between the restriction and the goal,”49 and, the urgency and extent
of evil sought to be remedied.50 The ban on CRB was imposed with a legitimate goal of ensuring
public health and environment protection, which in the instant case, is under serious jeopardy
due to CRB. The aforementioned adverse effects of CRB on health; the public health emergency
in place51 and increased mortality52 in NCR prompted the government to take such measures.
Furthermore, it is submitted that in imposing restrictions the State must adopt an objective
standard that amounts to social control by restricting the rights of the citizen where necessities
demand.53 The Notification strikes a balance between the right to healthy environment of the
public at large which is the pith and substance of the right to life,54 and the right of the farmers
under Art. 19(1)(g) through the objective standard of public health.
[¶18]. The nature of right enshrined and the disproportionate impact of the restriction to the
benefit it is likely to accrue must also be considered.55 Hence, it is of essence to mention that the
right enshrined under Art. 19(1)(g) does not ensure, by any stretch, a fundamental right to carry

46
id.
47
ORF, THE HERCULEAN TASK OF IMPROVING AIR QUALITY: THE CASE OF DELHI AND NCR (2018).
48
Tina Adler, Respiratory health: Measuring the health effects of crop burning, 118 (11) ENVIRON. HEALTH
PERSPECT. 475 (2010)
49
IMF Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Government, (1998) 8 SCC 22; State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
50
State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose, 1954 SCR 587; Abdul Hakim v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 448.
51
Compromis, ¶ 22.
52
COUNCIL ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND WATER, PADDY RESIDUE BURNING IN PUNJAB: UNDERSTANDING
FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVES AND RURAL AIR POLLUTION (2019).
53
Lakshmi Khandsari v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 600.
54
State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117.
55
M.J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka, 1995 6 SCC 289.

7
 -Memorial for Respondent-

on trade which generates pollution.56 Furthermore, the qualitative assessment of restriction

imposed would suggest that it is not disproportionate, considering that the benefit it is likely to
produce, by restricting CRB, would significantly reduce the pollution-based health risks in the
region.
[¶19]. Moreover, it is imperative that reasonableness be judged in “an objective manner and not
from the standpoint of the interests of the persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed; not
upon any abstract consideration.”57 Hence, it is important to examine the instant situation in an
objective manner in terms of the general interest of public health, and not from the farmer’s
standpoint. It should not be categorized as unreasonable merely because it operates harshly on
the farmers.58 Additionally, it is submitted that “if the restrictions imposed appear to be
consistent with the Directive Principles of State Policy they would have to be upheld as the same
are in public interest and are manifestly reasonable.”59 The impugned notification seeks to
discharge the constitutional mandate to protect the environment,60 and promote public health, 61
imposed on the State under Directive Principles and is thereby impressed with the quality of
reasonableness. Hence, it is not violative of Art.19(1)(g).
2.2 THAT THE NOTIFICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21
[¶20]. The Notification only prescribes a ban on CRB and does not violate the rights of the
farmers under Art. 21. It must be noted that although right to life conferred by Art. 21 includes
right to livelihood,62 but the same is not absolute and there is no absolute embargo on the
abridgment of the same provided that it takes place through a just, fair and reasonable procedure
established by law. 63 Any action taken by a public authority which is invested with statutory

56
Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, AIR 1998 Cal 121; M.P. JAIN,
INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Jasti Chelameswar & Dama Seshadri Naidu, eds., 8th ed., 2018).
57
Krishnan Kakanth v. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128.
58
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625.
59
Lakshmi Khandsari v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 600; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat,
(2005) 8 SCC 834
60
INDIA CONST., art. 48A.
61
INDIA CONST., art. 47.
62
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
63
Maneka Gandhi v. UoI, (1978) 2 SCR 621.

8
 -Memorial for Respondent-

powers, is to be tested by the application of two standards: the action must be within the scope of
the authority conferred by law and secondly, it must be reasonable.64
[¶21]. In the instant case, the State is well within the scope of its authority to issue the extant
notification for protection of environment and to ensure public health, and is constitutionally
mandated to do so under the Arts. 48A and 47. The requisite authority for this action is derived
from the EPA, 1986, which confers expansive powers upon the government to protect the
environment. Furthermore, the State is entrusted with the duty to adopt highly dynamic, yet
appropriate measures for preventing environment degradation keeping in pace with the
necessities of time.65
[¶22]. The legitimate goal of ensuring public health and avoiding environment pollution is
reasonable. The reasonableness of the State action has been previously established in the
preceding part of the submission by satisfying the test of Art. 19.
2.2.1 That the right to livelihood cannot be extended to trade injurious to public health
[¶23]. It is well established that the right to life under Art. 21 does protect the right to
livelihood, “but its deprivation cannot be extended too far or projected or stretched to the
avocation, business or trade injurious to public interest.”66 Although the right to practice a trade
or profession and the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 are, by their very nature, intermingled
with each other, but in a situation like the present one, such right cannot be equated with
unrestricted freedom like a runaway horse. 67
[¶24]. The SC, while discussing the hazards to unhealthy environment and ecological imbalance
has pressed upon the need to a healthy environment and an ecological balance and therefore,
accorded paramount significance to Fundamental Duties.68 The Court acknowledged that even
though a decision to permanently shut down the limestone quarries will operate harshly and
render the concerned person out of business, however, “it is a price that has to be paid for
protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimum

64
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
65
Goodwill Plastics Industries v. U.T. of Chandigarh, O.A. 26/2013, decided on 08.08.2013.
66
MJ Shivani v State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 17; Hawkers Merchants Welfare Association v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay, 2000 (102(2)) BOMLR 382.
67
State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn., AIR 2013 SC 2582.
68
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1988 SC 2187.

9
 -Memorial for Respondent-

disturbance of ecological balance.”69 There has been a paradigm shift from dependence on law
and executive implementation to conscious and voluntary involvement of all the persons. 70
Hence, maintaining a healthy environment is equally the duty of both the State and its citizens.
[¶25]. In the instant case, where CRB is causing serious acute as well as chronic health
disorders71 and is in complete violation of the right to life,72 it would be injurious to hold that the
farmer’s right to livelihood extends to causing of public discomfort. Hence, the Petitioner’s
claim of violation of right to livelihood does not hold merit as it cannot be extended to
unreasonable extents and consequently, the Notification cannot be classified as unreasonable due
to its harsh operation.
2.2.2 That the Doctrine of Larger Public Interest supports the Notification
[¶26]. It is submitted that in case of conflict of rights conferred under the same Article of the
Constitution, the test required to be applied is the test of larger public interest or ‘the paramount
collective interest’. To put it differently, the ‘greater community interest’ or ‘interest of the
collective or social order’ would be the principle to recognize.73 It is important to appreciate that
in the instant case the right to livelihood of a section of the public stemming from Art. 21 is in
conflict with the right to life of public at large. In such cases, the larger public interest is to be
sub-served which can only be achieved by restricting the harmful practice of CRB.
3. THAT THE STATE HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND
IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT.

[¶27]. The Respondent submits that firstly, the State has introduced adequate reforms and
interventions in agriculture, so as to organize it along environmentally scientific lines and tackle
agriculture-based pollution [3.1]; secondly, the State has undertaken various measures to remedy
air pollution and protect the environment, in general [3.2].

69
id.
70
Samatha v. State of A.P., (1997) 8 SCC 191; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1988
SC 2187; Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.
71
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 (1) ALT 251.
72
id.
73
Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.

10
 -Memorial for Respondent-

3.1 THE STATE HAS INTRODUCED ADEQUATE REFORMS AND INTERVENTIONS IN AGRICULTURE,
SO AS TO ORGANIZE IT ALONG ENVIRONMENTALLY SCIENTIFIC LINES AND TACKLE

AGRICULTURE-BASED POLLUTION.

[¶28]. It is submitted that firstly, the State has undertaken and implemented various measures to
control and provide viable alternatives to CRB; secondly, the State has introduced broader long-
term changes in agriculture policies along environmentally sound lines.
3.1.1 That the State has undertaken and implemented various measures to control and
provide viable alternatives to CRB.
[¶29]. The State has made adequate regulatory efforts to curb CRB, by providing viable
alternatives. A National Policy for Management of Crop Residues (2014) has been notified,74
pursuant to which the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change initiated a pilot
project on “Climate Resilience Building among Farmers through Crop Residue Management”.
Subsequently, a scheme for Promotion of Agricultural Mechanization for In-Situ Management of
Crop Residue in the States of Sindhujab, Gharyana, Unnati Pradesh and NCT of Dilprastha was
introduced.75 Under which, funds have been allocated to CRB-afflicted states, 76 for providing
CRM machinery to farmers at highly subsidized rates. Additionally, a comprehensive campaign
to detect and control CRB has been undertaken by the State under the scheme, following a
balanced incentive-disincentive model.77
[¶30]. Apart from encouraging in-situ CRM, avenues for ex-situ CRM are being increasingly
provided by the State. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has started an
initiative for energy-production from conversion of agricultural residue to biogas.78 Similarly, a
policy for co-firing biomass in thermal power plants has been notified. 79 State governments have

74
NATIONAL POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF CROP RESIDUES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (2014).
75
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF THE SCHEME "PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION FOR
IN-SITU MANAGEMENT OF CROP RESIDUE IN STATES OF PUNJAB, HARYANA, UTTAR PRADESH AND NCT OF DELHI”
(2019).
76
Id., at 14.
77
Id., at Chapter 4; Ganga Lalwani v. UoI, O.A. 666/2018, decided on 1.10.2019.
78
PROGRAMME ON ENERGY FROM URBAN, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL WASTES/RESIDUES AND MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE, MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (2020).
79
POLICY FOR BIOMASS UTILIZATION FOR POWER GENERATION THROUGH CO-FIRING IN PULVERIZED COAL FIRED
BOILERS, MINISTRY OF POWER; NTPC Limited To Procure 6 Million Tonnes Agro Residue-Based Pellets Worth
€522 Millions In 2020, BIOTHEK (Jan. 2, 2020).

11
 -Memorial for Respondent-

also implemented similar policies,80 and these policies are cumulatively expected to utilize 60
mega-tonnes of crop residue, 81 which would substantially reduce the current 92 mega-tonnes of
residue burnt annually.82
3.1.2 That the State has introduced broader long-term changes in agriculture policies along
environmentally sound lines.
[¶31]. Apart from providing immediate solutions to CRB, the State has also brought out
comprehensive policy changes to address the fundamental causes behind agriculture-based
ecological degradation, like promoting zero-tillage farming and incentivizing adoption of latest
technologies.83 Other measures include National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture, 84 Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana,85 Integrated Watershed Management Program, 86 etc. The State has also
undertaken measures to encourage crop diversification, and curb crop monoculture in KPP87
which is notably a foundational cause for environmentally unsound agriculture. These measures
include Crop Diversification Programme and the National Horticulture Mission. These measures
have made a significant impact on the net emissions.88
3.2 THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN VARIOUS MEASURES TO REMEDY AIR POLLUTION AND

PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, IN GENERAL.

[¶32]. The State has also enforced various laws, policies and schemes to tackle the issue of air
pollution, specifically within NCR, such as the Odd-Even Scheme, and suspension of

80
THE ENERGY AND RESOURCE INSTITUTE, GREEN GROWTH AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN PUNJAB (2015); HARYANA
BIO-ENERGY POLICY, NEW & RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPARTMENT (2018).
81
THE ENERGY AND RESOURCE INSTITUTE, CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT: SOLUTION TO ACHIEVE BETTER AIR
QUALITY (2020).
82
Supra note 74.
83
Compromis, ¶ 17.
84
NATIONAL MISSION FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(2014).
85
RASTRIYA KRISHI VIKAS YOJANA: OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (2017).
86
INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (2014).
87
Samyak Pandey, Nudge didn’t work, agriculture ministry now has a plan to force paddy farmers to diversify, THE
PRINT (Jan. 7, 2020).
88
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, SECOND BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT TO THE UNITED
NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (2018).

12
 -Memorial for Respondent-

industries.89 Through other measures, the State has tried to balance developmental rights with
environmental protection, thereby, adhering to the concept of Sustainable Development, which
forms a part of Art. 21 itself. 90 To establish an accurate information-collection framework, the
National Air Quality Index was launched in 2015, and was extended to 17 states for real-time
information collection. An Air Quality Early Warning System was launched in 2018, which
forecasts air quality, on eight parameters, and up to three days in advance, and allows for
preemptive mitigation of the polluting phenomena. For regulating pollution from industrial point
sources, Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter, “CPCB”) has mandated installation of
online Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in highly polluting industries across the
country.91 In 2018, CPCB also designated regions within NCR as pollution hotspots with the
objective of focusing on ensuring strict compliance with environmental norms within these
hotspots.92
[¶33]. For abating vehicular pollution, an Environment Compensation Charge was instituted, in
2015, on commercial vehicles plying on Dilprastha’s roads. Following the NGT’s direction to
ban diesel vehicles beyond a certain age, guidelines for scrapping old vehicles were notified. 93 A
shift to improved emission standards under BS-VI is underway,94 under which fuel stations
within NCR have shifted to BS-VI fuel.95 Other measures such as the National Electric Mobility
Mission Plan, 2020 and National Policy on Biofuels, 2018. Delhi Management of Parking Places
Rules, 2019 have also been notified which aim at reducing private vehicle emissions.CPCB has
previously issued 42 Action Points to various pollution-control authorities.96 Pursuant to the
SC’s orders, a Graded Response Action Plan has also been brought out, under EPCA’s
supervision.97 The EPCA has consistently issued directions to state governments to give effect to

89
Compromis, ¶ 22.
90
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UoI, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
91
GUIDELINES FOR CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (2018)
92
Supra note 47.
93
GUIDELINES FOR SCRAPPING OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN DELHI, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT OF NCT OF DELHI (2018).
94
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, INDIA BHARAT STAGE VI EMISSION STANDARDS.
95
Amid lockdown, India switches to BS-VI emission norms, THE HINDU (Apr. 2, 2020).
96
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, REPORT ON NATIONAL CLEAN AIR PROGRAM (2018).
97
GRADED RESPONSE ACTION PLAN, ENVIRONMENT POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY (2017).

13
 -Memorial for Respondent-

the plan.98 Similarly, the CPCB has held to account violators of environmental norms within the
NCR.99 More recently, at a national level, the National Clean Air Programme has been initiated,
which aims at ‘achieving the prescribed annual average air quality standards at all locations in
the country in a stipulated timeframe.’ 100
[¶34]. The State has, therefore, undertaken measures specific to the major polluting sectors
within the NCR, and generally to abate environmental pollution. A number of the
aforementioned measures are currently works in progress. State authorities have aimed at
substantially adhering to the functions assigned to them under these measures. All of the
aforementioned endeavors clearly evince that the State has adequately upheld the mandate of
protecting and improving the environment. Effective implementation of existing policies requires
a collaborative effort from the public, whose duty to protect the environment coincides with the
State’s,101 and has been affirmed through judicial precedent. 102

98
See DIRECTIONS ISSUED, EPCA.
99
Sarita C Singh, Central Pollution Control Board issues notices to 14 power plants, ECONOMIC TIMES (Mar. 18,
2020); Delhi's air quality 'very poor', CPCB issues notice over waste burning at Shahdara drain, THE OUTLOOK
(Dec. 6, 2018); CPCB issues notices to civic bodies for failing to tackle pollution issue, THE HINDU (Dec. 1, 2018);
300 out of 700 industries inspected by CPCB in 4 yrs found violating polluting environment: Env Min, THE
OUTLOOK (Mar. 13, 2020).
100
Supra note 47.
101
INDIA CONST., art. 51A(g).
102
Samatha v. State of A.P., (1997) 8 SCC 191; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1988
SC 2187.

14
 -Memorial for Respondent-

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
1. Declare, that the Notification is not arbitrary, disproportionate or violative of the right to
equality of farmers.
2. Declare, that the Notification is not violative of the fundamental right of the farmers to
life and livelihood, and is, therefore, valid.
3. Hold, that the State has fulfilled its obligation to protect and improve the environment.
And/Or
-Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interests of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience-
S/d-
Counsels for the Respondent

XIV