P 75

TEAM CODE: 75
BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF BADAMI
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
P.I.L NO. _________ OF 2022
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BADAMI
IN THE MATTER OF
BETTERBADAMI PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF BADAMI RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 02
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 03
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 04
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 05
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 06
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
● ISSUE 1:WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS 07
MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT?
● ISSUE 2: WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
09
VIOLATED?
● ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROJECTS HAVE A DIRECT
15
INFLUENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PEOPLE’S
WELL-BEING?.
7. PRAYER 20
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES CITED
Sl. CASE
No
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 AIR 180
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR (1984) 3 SCC 161
4. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
5. M.C Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 115
6. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. U.O.I 1982 AIR 14731
7. Virandar Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577
8. Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B AIR 1987 SC 1109
9. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867
10. K.Chandru v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R 1986, S.C 204
11. MC Mehta V. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) (1987) 4 SCC 463.
12. Chhetriya pradushan mukti sangharsh samiti v. State of up, AIR 1990 SC 2060
13. T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1987 AP 171
14. State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, 1996 AIR 149,1995 SCC (6) 363
15. Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
16. M.C. Mehta v. Kamalnath, (1997) 1 SCC 388
17. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 S.C. 652, 1985 SCR
(3) 169
18. State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981) 2 SCC 205
19. A.P pollution Control Board (II) v Prof M.V. Nayadu (2001)2 SCC 62
20. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 1996 5 SCR 241
21. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adi Narayan Setty 1959 AIR 429
22. Kalyani (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Ors, CIVIL
APPEAL NO(s). 3189 OF 2022
23. Municipality & Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3189 OF 2022
24. Hukum Chand Gupta V. State of Haryana 2005(1) SCC 572
25. Land Acquisition Officer, Devangere v. Nagappa (1973) 2 Mys LJ 380
RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2022
BOOKS/JOURNALS/TREATIES REFERRED
1. VN SHUKLA, Constitution of India,13th ed. 2019

2. M. P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th Edn, 2010)
3. GURDEEP SINGH, Environmental law.
4. S.SHANTHAKUMAR, Introduction to Environmental Law,
5. SHYAM DIVAN; ARMIN ROSCENCRANZ, Environmental Law and Policy in India.
6. DR. P.S JASWAL, DR. NISHTHA JASWAL, Environmental Law.
7. S.C SHASTRI, Environmental Law.
8. Stockholm declaration
9. Rio convention
10. Brundtland report
STATUTES
1. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013; 1, Law Street. The Gazette of India. 26 September 2013.
Retrieved 2 June 2015.The Copyrights Act, 1957
2. The Constitution of India, 1950
3. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in
5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

& And
Anr. Another
Art. Article
NEP New Economic Policy
Ed. Edition
FR Fundamental Rights
Hon’ble Honorable
Ltd. Limited
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
Ors. Others
r/w Read With
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Case
Sec. Section
SSN Social Security Number
Vol. Volume
WP Writ Petition

3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.The Republic of Badami is a country of 1.5 billion people. About three-quarters of the electricity sector is
dominated by fossil fuels. It is third largest producer as well as the third largest consumer of electricity
2. The Badami Institute of Policy and Ideation (BIPI), the Government’s foremost think-tank and policy body
estimated that by 2050, the population of Badami would peak to 2.5 billion, with annual energy consumption
estimated to be at least 4000 TWh (Terawatt-hour).
3. The Government of Badami came out with the New Energy Policy (NEP) to increase the share of renewable
energy sources to 50% of the energy output of the country and invest in the research and development initiatives
to enable cleaner generation of energy from non-renewable sources.
4. In pursuance of the NEP, the Government of Badami launched three projects 1. The Paramanu Nuclear Power
Project under the Badami-US Nuclear deal. 2. The Vrishabhavati Dam project. And 3. The Dhatri integrated coal
mining and power generation plant.
5. The announcement was met with mixed public response; however intense protests were held by environmental
activists and locals where the projects were being setup. The Government responded by slapping sedition cases
against the protestors but did not remove the protestors.
6. BetterBadami, an NGO working in the field of environmental protection and advancing the rights of displaced
communities, filed a PIL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Badami, claiming a violation of fundamental
rights, seeking the closure of the nuclear power plant and coal plant and the deferment of the dam project till the
complete rehabilitation of displaced communities and payment of compensation.

4
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT?
ISSUE II
WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE PROJECTS HAVE A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND

PEOPLE’S WELL-BEING?

5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT?
The petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is maintainable under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution
because every individual has the right to approach this Court for a violation of their constitutional rights, and the
Petitioner's rights under Article 14, 19, and 21 have been violated in this case.
II] WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?
It is alleged that the residents of Badami have had their fundamental rights infringed upon. The government's
New Energy Policy (NEP) has not only been environmentally unfriendly, but it has also violated residents' rights.
The government has disregarded citizens' opinions on the matter, which is a violation of one of democracy's most
fundamental principles. Furthermore, the projects' nature endangers citizens' rights to a clean environment, as
well as their right to livelihood and shelter..
III] WHETHER THE PROJECTS HAVE A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND
The projects are said to pose a substantial threat to the environment and the general health of the people who live
in the areas where they will be built. The government is responsible for ensuring that natural resources and the
environment are protected, conserved, and not overexploited. Extensive mining can cause erosion, habitat loss,
and pollution, all of which contribute to natural resource degradation and habitat destruction. Furthermore, the
Republic of Badami has yet to resolve the compensation due to landowners prior to the government's acquisition
of their land for dam building

6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[I] WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT?
It is hereby submitted that the petitioner in the instant matter is BetterBadami, an NGO working in the field of
environmental protection and advancing the rights of displaced communities. The petition filed before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution. Under Article 32, the Supreme
Court has the power to enforce fundamental rights. In the instant case, petition is filed with a bona fide intention
and the petitioner has a valid locus standing under Article 32 since there has been an infringement of
Fundamental Rights.
(a) Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of Badami
In the present matter the projects launched by the Government of Badami are violative of the rights guaranteed
under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Article 21 and in Olga Tellis
v. Bombay Municipal Corporation2 The right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit
the right to live with human dignity. Article 21 provides that nobody shall be denied his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law. “Procedure established by law” also means that the procedure
laid down by an enacted law authorizing interference with life and liberty, must be followed.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court by "appropriate
proceedings''. A proceeding is appropriate and when it relates to the enforcement of the fundamental rights of
poor, disabled or ignorant by a public-spirited person
The Supreme Court and the High Courts in India possess concurrent powers to issue orders and writs for
enforcement of fundamental rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot impose a condition that the petitioner
should in the first instance, approach the High Court for remedy. The court opined that the ambit and scope of
1
1978 AIR 597
2
(1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)
7
Article 32 has been discussed in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India3. 'It may now be well settled that
Article 32 does not merely confer power on this court to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of the
fundamental rights but it also lays down a constitutional obligation...to protect the fundamental rights of the
people and for that purpose this court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new
remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights."
It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that Freedom of speech and expression is provided under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution. The citizens have the right to voice their opinion against any statute or policy introduced
by the Government. In the present case the Government has slapped sedition cases against the protestors which
infringes their right provided under 19(1)(a).
In the present matter the Government has, by failing to compensate and rehabilitate the displaced people to
establish the Vrishabhavati Dam project, violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Government
has also acted arbitrarily by introducing the NEP without taking into consideration the views of the people of the
community. This has resulted in the breach of the right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
Therefore, the petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(b) BetterBadami has Locus Standi
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petition filed by BetterBadami is maintainable as they
are filing it in public interest and is not guided by self-gain and that there is no motive other than public good.
The Petitioner being an NGO concerned with environmental protection and promoting the rights of displaced
communities has the locus standi to file the petition since it is working in furtherance of its objectives.
The judiciary is the protector of fundamental rights and there is no rigid rule of locus standi that can be applied to
a PIL. The Supreme Court has permitted any person who is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest in
maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion.
3
AIR (1984) 3 SCC 161
8
Considering the nature and scope of PIL, Justice P.N Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India4, observed that
where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of
violation of any legal right by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an
application for an appropriate direction.
Furthermore, where a concerned citizen or voluntary organization may not only sue as a representative of others
but also in his or her own right as a member of the citizenry to whom a public duty is owed. If a public authority
acting illegally causes a specific legal injury to a person or a specific group of persons, a private action for redress
would lie under the traditional doctrine of standing. In the Ganga Pollution (Municipalities) Case5, the Supreme
Court upheld the standing of a Delhi resident to sue the government agencies whose prolonged neglect had
resulted in severe pollution of the river and supported the notion of citizen standing. In addition, in People’s
Union for Democratic Rights v. U.O.I 6 it was recognized that a third party could directly file a petition to the
court and seek its intervention in a matter where another party’s fundamental rights were being violated and it
also held that public interest litigation is a strategic arm of the legal said movement which is intended to bring
justice.
If public duties are to be enforced and social collective 'diffused' rights and interests are to be protected, we have
to utilize the initiative and zeal of public-minded persons and organizations by allowing them to move the court
and act for a general or group interest, even though they may not be directly injured in their own rights.
Therefore, BetterBadami has the locus standi to issue a petition before this Hon’ble Court.
[II] WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?
It is hereby submitted that the fundamental rights of the people of Badami have been violated. The constitution of
Badami provides that status of environment protection has not only been raised to the fundamental law of land
4
AIR 1982 SC 149
5
M.C Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 115
6
1982 AIR 14731
9
but it has also corresponded with human rights and is now accepted as a well-established fact that it is a basic
human right to every citizen of the country.
Badami is a socialist democratic country and the citizens have the liberty to openly voice out their opinion on
State legislations or policy and it is necessary to regard the agency of citizens in the participation of decisions that
affect them directly or indirectly. In the instant matter, the New Energy Policy (NEP) introduced by the
Government has not only been callous towards the environment but has also violated the rights of its citizens. The
Government responded to the severe backlash and protests towards the Policy by slamming sedition charges
resulting in the curtailment of their democratic right. Furthermore, the citizen’s standpoint on the matter has been
disregarded by the Government which infringes one of the essential principles of a democracy.
In addition, Badami is a member of the United Nations Organization and a signatory to various conventions
relating to environmental issues including the Stockholm Declaration. The declaration states that man has the
fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits
life of dignity and well-being7. This principle has been reaffirmed and applied by the Supreme Court in Virandar
Gaur v. State of Haryana8. The declaration further states that the development policies must be compatible with
the need to protect and improve the human environment for the benefit of their population9.
Further, Part IV of the Constitution under Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. They are fundamental in the
governance of the country and they, being part of the Supreme Law of the land, have to be implemented. 10 In
addition to this the Constitution under Article 51-A (g) casts a fundamental duty on every citizen of India to
protect and improve the natural environment. In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B11, the Supreme Court
pointed out that whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind
7
Principle 1, Stockholm declaration of 1972
8
(1995) 2 SCC 577
9
Principle 13, Stockholm Declaration of 1972
10
Article 37, The Constitution of India.
11
AIR 1987 SC 1109
10
Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. Thus, fundamental rights should be interpreted in the light of
directive principles and it is the duty of the State to protect and improve the natural environment.
The Courts, while dealing with environmental cases, have referred and based their judgments on Right to
Equality (Article 14), Right to Life (Article 21) and Right to free speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a).
(a)Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Badami
The Environment laws passed by the center as well as the State recognises the need for a clean environment not
only as a Fundamental right but also as a Human right. It is regarded as the basic need for survival of humanity as
mankind depends on a clean, healthful or pollution free environment.
(i)Right to livelihood and Shelter
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty which also includes "right to
life" includes the "right to livelihood" 12. This broad interpretation of the right to life is very helpful in checking
the governmental actions that threaten the poor people of their livelihood by dislocating them from their place of
living or otherwise depriving them of their livelihood.
In N.D. Jayal v. Union of India13, the Supreme Court while considering various issues of Tehri Dam Project
observed that the oustees and displaced persons from the Tehri Dam Area have a right under Article 21 of the
constitution to lead a decent life and earn livelihood in rehabilitated locations. The procedure of displacing the
people from their habitat can be "just, fair and reasonable only when they are provided with suitable alternative
sites with all basic amenities of life”. 14 The Government must formulate policy regarding working for the public
to promote sustainable development of habitat with a view to ensure equitable supply of Land, shelter and
services .
12
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation. (1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51)
13
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867
14
K.Chandru v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R 1986, S.C 204
11
In the instant case, the Vrishabathi dam project has displaced the residents of the locality and the Government has
failed to completely rehabilitate and compensate the communities. In addition, the people are at a disadvantage
as their earning capacity is affected and the value of their respective lands has been diminished.
Thus, the action of displacement of persons from their habitat thereby depriving them of their livelihood and
shelter can be declared as unconstitutional being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
(ii)Right to clean and healthy environment
According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, every citizen has a basic right to have a high quality of life
and a comfortable standard of living. Anything that is endangered or harmed by someone's activity, whether in
violation or derogation of life, is entitled to approach the Court under Art 32 of the Constitution15.
In MC Mehta V. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), Justice Singh declared in unequivocal terms that even
though closure of industries may bring loss of revenue to the State, “but life, health and ecology have greater
importance for the people.”16 Further, in the case of T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation the Court
held that Article 21 of the Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without which
life cannot be enjoyed. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and
spoliation should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.17
In the present matter, The Paramanu Nuclear Power Project and The Dhatri integrated coal mining and power
generation plant involve activities which pollute the environment and makes it hazardous to human health. Such
projects possess the tendency to emit harmful radiation and radioactive substances which may affect the health
and safety of the people as well as the environment. Therefore, establishing of the projects are violative of the
right to have a clean and a healthy environment envisaged under Art 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, violative of Art 21 of the Constitution.
15
Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P, AIR 1990 SC 2060
16
(1987) 4 SCC 463.
17
T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1987 AP 171
12
(b) Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of Badami
The Indian Constitution guarantees 'right to equality' to all persons without any discrimination. This indicates
that any action of the 'State' relating to the environment must not infringe upon the right to equality as enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution. This right may be infringed by government decisions that have an impact on the
environment. Article 14, among other things, strikes at arbitrariness 'because an action that is arbitrary must
necessarily involve a negation of equality.
Article 14 may also be invoked to challenge government sanctions for mining and other activities with high
environmental impact, where the permissions are 'arbitrarily' granted without an adequate consideration of
environmental impacts in State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, The Supreme Court ruled that a
decision-making body must give ecological issues like the government's environmental policy and the sustainable
use of natural resources fair weight and consideration. A government decision that disregards significant
environmental factors is null and void.18.
One apparent approach to use is to assess if the contested act has any identifiable principal, and if so, whether it
passes the reasonableness requirement. When a process is established for performing an act and there is no
impediment to following it, performing the act otherwise and in a way that does not reveal any discernible,
rational principle may attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be guided by logic, and an act that
is not guided by logic is arbitrary.
In the present case, the NEP introduced by the Government for the projects involves heavy use of science and
technology and it will most definitely impact the environment. The Government has failed to take into account
the impact of the projects on the ecology, therefore rendering the policy arbitrary.
Therefore, the New Economic Policy introduced by the Government of Badami is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
18
State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, 1996 AIR 149, 1995 SCC (6) 363.
13
(c) Violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Badami
To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have the freedom to express their feelings
and to make their views known to the people at large. The Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a) guarantees all
citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
In the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar19 the Court ruled that criticism of the Government,
however strongly worded or abusively made, does not fall within the ambit of Sec 124A, IPC, if there is no
intention or tendency to disorder or to violence.20 People must have the freedom to express their feelings and
make their opinions known to the general public in order to maintain the democratic way of life.
In the instant case, the people who voiced out their disdain towards the project were slapped with sedition
charges. Furthermore, the acts of the people did incite any kind of violence nor was there an intention regarding
the same. Therefore, curtailing their right to free speech and expression.
In addition, the right to know is also implicit in Article 19(1)(a) and particularly in environmental matters where
the secret government decision/plan may affect health, life and livelihood of the people. The right to know or
access to information is the basic right for which the people of democratic countries like India aspire for. In S.P.
Gupta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the concept of open government is the direct
emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosures of
information in regard to the functioning of the Government must be the rule.21
Any governmental plan of construction of dams or information of the proposed location of nuclear power stations
or thermal power plants and hazardous industries, which directly affect the lives and health of the people of that
area, must be widely published. In the present petition the Government merely made an announcement pertaining
to the three projects and devoid the people of essential information. Therefore, the acts of the protestors did not
19
Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 76
20
(1962), A.I.R 955
21
S.P Gupta v. Union AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365
14
amount to sedition but rather their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) was
violated.
Therefore, there is a violation of Fundamental Rights.
[III] WHETHER THE PROJECTS HAVE A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND
(a)Whether the Dhatri coal mining project and Paramanu Nuclear Power Project pose serious threats
to the environment and health?
It is submitted that the projects pose great threat to the ecology and general health of the people situated in the
areas where the projects have been proposed. Nuclear power generation has not advanced to the extent that the
benefits of it. The handling of nuclear substances, including disposal of radioactive wastes involves inherent long
term and short term risks to the surrounding. Carbon Emissions during mining and running of the power plants
are released into the environment causing increased incidents of health hazards among people who live near
nuclear power plants. The leakage of radioactive waste into the surroundings has the tendency of lowering the
value of the surrounding property.
Therefore, the apprehension of the people regarding the Paramanu Nuclear Power project is not unreasonable.
Furthermore, according to the Doctrine of Public Trust makes the government /the state a trustee of the public
who should take care of the natural resources and preserve it for public use. It gives power to the citizens to raise
questions against the ineffective management of natural resources. The principle has been envisaged in the
Constitution and the courts have also, for instance, the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath22 observed
22
(1997) 1 SCC 388
15
that the public trust doctrine is a part of our jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources, is
under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into
private ownership.
In the instant case, the New Energy Policy has intended to increase renewable energy sources in the country.
Power generation from coal is non- renewable energy and the project is not in consonance with the Energy
policy. In the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26), 2021 23 the nations were called upon to phase
down unabated coal power and inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels. The Republic of Badami has made
commitments at the Conference and is under a duty under Article 51 of the Constitution to respect and foster
international relations. The Dhatri project is in contravention to the international commitment of the State and it
requires clearing of forests which disturbs the natural habitat of several creatures and gradually upsets the
ecological balance of the region.
The decision of the court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. 24 (Doon valley case) has
reiterated that those natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes of the social development with the
requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way. Long term
planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth should not intend to be exhausted in one generation.
Further, international conventions and declarations and several decisions of the Courts of Badami have time and
again affirmed the need for a balance between environmental protection and developmental activities which is to
be maintained by strictly following the principles of “sustainable development”. Therefore, no developmental
activities are entertained at the cost of the environment or the rights of individuals.
It is submitted that the Stockholm declaration of 1972 refers to the principle of Inter-generational equity in as
environment is viewed as a resource basis for the survival of the present and future generations 25. It bestows upon
man a fundamental right of freedom and equality and permits a dignified life while bearing the responsibility to
safeguard the natural resources and the environment for present and future generations. In addition, the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) provides that the right to development must be fulfilled so
23
UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26), 2021
24
AIR 1985 S.C. 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169
25
Principal 1 and 2, Stockholm Declaration of 1972
16
as to equitably meet the needs of present and future generations and in order to achieve sustainable development,
environmental protection cannot be considered in isolation from it. The environment and natural resources of
people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected and tates should reduce and eliminate
unsustainable pattern of production and consumption. Thus, use and conservation of natural resources is an
essential principle of sustainable development.26
Even the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone 27 opined that natural resources constitute a
nation's wealth and these resources are not to be exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty
to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way.
In addition to this the Rio Conference of 1992 applies the precautionary principle which involves the anticipation
of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity.
A.P pollution Control Board (II) v Prof M.V. Nayadu 28,Environmental protection should not only aim at
protecting health, property, and economic interests, but also protect the environment for its own sake and
precautionary duties, must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by concern or risk
potential. It may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity and
they are to discharge their burden by showing the absence of a 'reasonable ecological or medical concern'29.
Further, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 30 the Supreme Court observed that despite the fact
that the industry is crucial to the country in terms of generating foreign exchange and providing job opportunities,
it has no right to harm the ecology, degrade the environment, or constitute a health risk. It cannot be allowed to
expand or even continue with current production until it addresses the pollution problem caused by the industry
on its own.
26
Principal 3 and 4, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)
27
(1981) 2 SCC 205
28
(2001)2 SCC 62.
29
Ibid.
30
1996 5 SCR 241
17
The need for developments to be sustainable as elaborated above, and in view of the projects that are launched by
the Government of Badami, it is most humbly submitted that the projects are hostile to the environment and the
health of the inhabitants and are far from being sustainable.
[b]Whether the Government has completely rehabilitated the displaced communities and paid adequate
compensation?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court, that the republic of Badami has not settled the compensation the
land owners are supposed to get before the acquisition of the land by the government for the construction of the
dam.
It is thereby submitter that under section 38 of The right to fair compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, The Collector or the Government, shall take possession
of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation are paid to the entitled persons
within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of
rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the
award. The Collector shall be responsible for ensuring that the rehabilitation and resettlement process is
completed in all its aspects before displacing the affected families.
Badami is a country where majority of the population lives in rural areas and is heavily dependent on the primary
sector and on urban properties. When the government intends to carry out some developmental work like
construction of dams it requires vast expanse of land. Since land is a scarce resource, the government has to
acquire land thereby depriving the existing occupants from its use. This leads to large-scale displacement and
forced transfer of people from their land. As per Section 26 of the 2013 Act, the Collector has to adopt certain
criteria for assessing and determining the market value of the land for compensation.
Further under Section 28 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, The compensation is to be provided after taking into consideration the
the market value of the land at the date of publication, as well as the damage sustained by the person interested.
18
In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adi Narayan Setty,31 it was held that when Compensation
for land is complicated, the market value is one option to be used by estimating the amount that the land might be
expected to realize if sold in the open market at valuation date after proper marketing between a willing seller and
a willing buyer.
In a recent case however, alternate land was ordered to be provided. Large piece of land was acquired for Mata
Mansa Devi shrine Board and a writ was filed challenging the same which failed but the court issued a directive
to the government to provide alternate plots of similar sizes to small landowners who apply for the same and
establish that the land which was acquired belonged to them 32. It is settled law that the burden of proof of market
value prevailing as on date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification is always on the claimants but burden can
also on the Land Acquisition Officer to establish the validity and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by
him.33
In this instant case, the claimants are required to get their compensation along with rehabilitation if alternate plots
of similar size and value were not provided.
Further, Article 21 of the constitution also recognises right to compensation under this article. The Supreme Court
bench in Kalyani (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality & Ors 34, held that the
actions of the respondents of acquiring the property of the appellants, all farmers, without paying any
compensation was arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. The State
can only deprive a person of the right to property if the same is for a public purpose and the right to compensation
is fulfilled, thereby reiterating that the right to compensation is an inbuilt part of Article 300A.
31
1959 AIR 429
32
Hukum Chand Gupta V. State of Haryana 2005(1) SCC 572
33
Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. Nagappa (1973) 2 Mys LJ 380
34
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3189 OF 2022
19
In Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar,35 the court for the very first time laid down the principle that compensation can
be given in the cases where any fundamental right of an individual has been injured and that the higher courts
have the authority to do so by using the writ jurisdiction and evolved the principle of compensatory
jurisprudence.
In the instant case, the Government has not only failed to completely rehabilitate the displaced communities but
has also failed to compensate them. Therefore, it has resulted in the violation of the rights of the citizens.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge
and direct:
1. To allow the present petition.
2. The closure of the nuclear power plant and coal plant.
3. Defer the dam project.
4. Order the Government to completely rehabilitate and pay compensation to the displaced community
35
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983 AIR 1086, 1983 SCR (3) 508
20
AND/OR
Pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the favor of the petitioner and against the respondent to meet
the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.
Sd/-
COUNSEL for PETITIONER

21

P 75

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

P 75

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 75

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF BADAMI

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

P.I.L NO. _________ OF 2022

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BADAMI

UNION OF BADAMI RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. VN SHUKLA, Constitution of India,13th ed. 2019

1. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

AIR All India Reporter

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?

WHETHER THE PROJECTS HAVE A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

I] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

II] WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[I] WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

(a) Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of Badami

Therefore, the petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(b) BetterBadami has Locus Standi

[II] WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED?

(a)Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Badami

(i)Right to livelihood and Shelter

(ii)Right to clean and healthy environment

(b) Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of Badami

(c) Violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Badami

1. To allow the present petition.

2. The closure of the nuclear power plant and coal plant.

3. Defer the dam project.

COUNSEL for PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

You might also like