STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court enjoys the right to preside over this matter by virtue
of Section 22 of The National Green Tribunal Act 2010 which provides that, Any
person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the tribunal, may, file an
appeal to the Supreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communication
of the award, decision or order of Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the
grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

1
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the
present case are summarized as follows:

1. Friends of Earth, an environmental organization approached the National Green

Tribunal (NGT) alleging ‘X’ organization responsible for causing damage to the
river floodplains by conducting ‘Y’ Festival there. The NGT held ‘X’
organization responsible for causing environmental degradation and directed
that Rs. 5 Crore paid by the organization in fine be utilized for restoration of the
affected area.

2. The high-powered panel had stated that the floodplains had lost “almost all its
natural vegetation” like trees, shrubs, tall grasses, aquatic vegetation, including
water hyacinth that provides habitat to a large number of animals, insects and
mud-dwelling organisms because of the three-day ‘Y’ Festival. According to
them, the ground was totally leveled, compacted and hardened and is now totally
devoid of water bodies or depressions and completely barren. It further claims
that a different kind of external material was used to level the ground and
compress it.

3. ‘X’ organization responded that the ‘Y’ Festival was conducted to “spread the
message of global peace and harmony in diversity by bringing together spiritual
and religious leaders, politicians, peacemakers and artists from across the
world”. X submitted a peek into the satellite images of the concerned land parcel
indicates these to be farm lands and the area under contention as flat land and
not a floodplain.
2
4. ‘X’ organization submitted that, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change had contended that as per a 2006 environment impact
assessment report, the festival did not require any environmental clearance.

5. ‘X’ organization further submitted that, the event was conducted after
complying with all environmental norms by procuring approvals from the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change department, the State
Pollution Control Committee, the State Irrigation Committee, State Disaster
Management Authority, Irrigation and Flood Control Department of State, so
they should not held liable and penalty imposed on them should be refunded.

3
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE EVENT AND PREPARATION FOR THE EVENT CAN BE

CONSIDERED AS A CAUSE TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN AND
THE RIVER?

2. WHETHER HOLDING A CULTURAL EVENT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A

PROHIBITED ACTIVITY?

3. WHETHER THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO PERFORM

THEIR FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES TO PROTECT THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THE
ENVIRONMENT?

4. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND

CONSEQUENCE, IF ANY, WHETHER THE ORGANIZERS ARE SOLELY LIABLE
TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION OR FINE FOR SUCH DAMAGE AND RESTORE
THE VENUE TO ITS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS?

4
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE EVENT AND PREPARATION FOR THE EVENT CAN BE

CONSIDERED AS A CAUSE TO THE DAMAGE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN AND
THE RIVER?
A. The floodplains had already been destroyed long ago by agricultural
activities, dumping of debris and by other activities. The event site actually
comprises of agriculture land. There was no protected vegetation at the event
site which has been alleged to be damaged by Respondent for holding the
event.
B. Committee had described the state of flood plains at the event site before the
event but on the other hand in the report dated 28th November, 2016, the
Committee stated that it is not possible to assess the ecological status of the
riparian eco-system at the event site before the event. Thus, the findings of
the Committee are based on unsure material. In view of the inconsistency in
the reports makes it unreliable.
C. The Committee relied on ‘one satellite image’ dated 5th September, 2015 for
showing existence of wetlands at the event site, which was a peak monsoon
season, hence it is not justified to rely on a single image that too of a heavy
rainy season. No other data is there to support the report. There are no
wetlands at all at the event site. As per the Wetland (Conservation and
Management Rules) 2010, wetlands have to be demarcated/identified first.
So Committee’s assumption that there were wetlands at event site is
erroneous as there were no identified wetlands at the event site.

5
 D. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors. vs. Jai Lal and Ors1. and Dayal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal2
in support of his submission that Expert Report without any supporting
technical verifiable data or other piece of verifiable evidence which supports
such statements ought not to be accepted. The Expert Report is not binding
upon the Court. The Court is expected to analyze the report, read it in
conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final
opinion.

2. WHETHER HOLDING A CULTURAL EVENT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A

PROHIBITED ACTIVITY?
1. Holding of a cultural event does not come within the prohibited activity but
it is a permissible activity in accordance with the judgment in the case
D.D.A v. Rajendra Singh3The material used at the site comprising of
bamboo and mud and eco-friendly material which will not cause any harm to
the flood plains of the river.
2. ‘Y’ Festival was conducted to “spread the message of global peace and
harmony in diversity by bringing together spiritual and religious leaders,
politicians, peacemakers and artists from across the world. The respondent
was organizing the event in question which was expected to be attended by
huge number of people from various countries. One of the agendas for
holding the festival near river was to create awareness amongst the people
about the importance of the river and cleaning the same. The Respondent
had taken due precaution and in conformity with the directions issued by the

1
(1999) 7 SCC 280
2
(2012) 8 SCC 263
3
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/35204.pdf
6
 Tribunal or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the High Courts. The
Applicant has levelled false and whimsical allegations against respondent

3. WHETHER THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO PERFORM

THEIR FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES TO PROTECT THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THE
ENVIRONMENT?

1. In compliance of the directions in Yamuna judgment of the Tribunal, the

authorities had not demarcated the flood plains at river Yamuna and thus
respondent cannot be solely held liable for the damage to the flood plain.

2. It had taken all the necessary approvals and clearances from different
regulatory bodies and then only it started the construction works. Which
signifies that there is no deviation or violation of the master plan or any other
rules relating to ecology and environment, more particularly, in relation to
river.

3. The floodplains had already been destroyed long ago by agricultural

activities, dumping of debris and by other activities. The responsible
authorities miserably failed to protect the area.

4. Permission to conduct the event was granted by the authorities without

conducting Environmental Impact assessment. Thus it cannot be said that the
event or preparation for the event has solely caused irreparable damages to
the flood plain and river.

4. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND

CONSEQUENCE, IF ANY, WHETHER THE ORGANIZERS ARE SOLELY LIABLE

7
TO PAY ANY COMPENSATION OR FINE FOR SUCH DAMAGE AND RESTORE
THE VENUE TO ITS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS?
1. It was not bound by the tenets of the Yamuna Judgment because it was not a
party to the said judgment and hence, it cannot be held liable for the
destruction of the floodplains
2. The law requires protection of the inter relation between environment and
human beings. Section 2(c) of the NGT Act, 2010 which defines the word
“environment” does not specifically refers to or identify cultural, traditional,
religious practices as leading to pollution which harms environment. The
provisions of the act primarily would apply to rapid expansion in industrial,
infrastructure and transportation sectors and events like cultural festival are
not covered under the provisions of the Act. In cases, where social
consideration arises, protection of environment would include within its fold
protection of the ecological and the social relationship and as well as any
other relation which a mere property may have developed as part of
environment itself. These respondents also relies on S.2 (m) of the act
defining “substantial question relating to environment” and contended that
various melas and festivals held on riverbed does not raise any substantial
question relating to environment and mere statutory violation does not make
a cause of action.
3. Being an expert body, the tribunal is expected to accurately determine the
amount of compensation keeping in consideration the aspect of scientific
uncertainty. Thus the common man, environment activists, the aggrieved
parties and the polluters, all have the right to assume that the amount of
compensation will be more or less proportionate with the quantum of
damage. The tribunal has not technically equipped experts to deal with the
matter of determination of compensation.

8
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced

and authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Appellant humbly pray
before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the conviction by the National Green Tribunal and acquit the
appellant of all charges.

Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity,
justice and good conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships
the Defendant shall as duty bound ever pray.

Sd/- _______________________ Counsels for the Defendant