Novice MOOT Semi finals Date – 7/5/2022

SUBMISSIONS
 INTRODUCTION:
May I humbly plead before the honorable Supreme court , good afternoon. My name is Surekha
Kulkarni , and I am the counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondent, Malgudi Tourism
Association.

 JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted the respondent is appearing before the Honorable Supreme Court,
under the article 132 of the constitution of India.
Before stating the facts, my lordship I want to quote a famous environmentalist ,’” I don’t
want to protect the environment , I want to create a world where environment doesn’t
need protection. This my lordships is the crux of this case.

 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF :-

 Konoha, a state which is famously known as the ‘adventure capital’ of the country,
Aryavarta. Situated on the banks of River Mihika, amidst the dense forest, Malgudi is
one of the most  popular towns amongst tourists in Konoha. Malgudi has been catering to
both adventure & nature-based  tourism for several years. Travel agencies and guides at
Malgudi offer varied tourist activities  that include jungle trekking, jeep safari, river-side
camping, bird-spotting and watching,  which enjoy the benefits of peak footfall in the
summer months. town located on the banks of river. Especially the Water Based
adventure tourism activities (Kayaking & RiverRafting has led to many adventure
enthussiasts arriving solely to experience river rafting and camping in the peak
summer season .
 My lordships kindly note these 2 activities has collectively contributed to over 40% of
the annual revenue garnered through tourism Despite having faced a  wide range of socio-
economic problems in the past, the state of Konoha massive economic growth in the last
decade has been primarily driven by tourism.  Albeit making huge strides in the tourism
industry, the population of Konoha has remained  largely unskilled, with relatively low
literacy rates. 
 The legal system of Aryavarta is structured on the common law principles with the Laws
of Aryavarta being in pari materia to the Laws of the Republic of India.

 On the basis of a suspicion of a linkage between the sanitation and waste disposal
practices adopted by watersports and river side camp operators at River Mihika and the
risks posed to the aquatic cosystem and water quality, on 28th February 2022, the
appellant released a circular banning all river rafting and camping activities on the banks
of River Mihika for the months of March, April, May and June effective every year.

 Aggrieved by the impact of the circular, my client filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Konoha challenging the constitutional validity of the circular, along with an
interim application seeking a stay on the operation of the circular.
 The High Court of Konoha passed an interim order staying the operation of the circular,
until the final conclusion of the proceedings, on account of the circular being ex-facie
violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Aryavarta..
 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE :-
The interim order passed on account of ex- facie violative of article 14 and 19 (1) (g) and
read article 21 also

 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS :-

1. Sub-issue 1 –The counsel would like to argue on the basis on which the interim order
stay on the operation of the circular was granted
2. Sub-issue 2 -The counsel would then argue for a request for the final relief under article
226 of the constitution, under the appropriate jurisdiction of the High Court.

 ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED :-
SUBISSUE 1
 It is humbly submitted before this Honorable Supreme Court that, with all due respect
toward the Honorable Supreme Court, the respondent is of the view that while hearing
and deciding the first appeal of the present appellant -the environment ministry the
honorable court needs to consider that the interim relief, my lordships pl note it is only
interim in nature has been granted as the circular is ex prima in violation of article 14,
19(1) g and read with article 21.

 My lordships, this circular is violating the right of my client under the doctrine of equality
granted under article 14 the constitution. We wish to draw attention of the esteemed court
to the following apex court judgment passed in 1982 .AK Roy v Union of India As per
para 31 of the judgement, no ordinance can result in article 14,19 and 21 be reduced
dead letter.

 Most of the members of the tourist association are illiterate and are equally entitled to an
equality of law and equal protection of all applicable laws.

 We also would want to draw your attention that the circular is arbitrary in nature and
places restriction on employment opportunities for my client thus violating my clients right
under article 19 (1)g.

 The Apex Court in its judgement in 2016, Modern Dental college v state of MP noted that
as the question involved a restriction on the Article 19(1) (g) freedom of trade, the
proportionality standard would apply (paragraph 15). The Court then went on to note
that the case also involved challenges on grounds of Article 14 and 21. However, since
the substance of the challenges was essentially the same, they could be collectively
considered
 The judgments in 2021 in State of TN v NSIRIAN  and Akshay N Patel v  RBI are
important, as in they explicitly entrench the proportionality standard as the constitutional
standard in adjudicating Articles 14, 19, and 21 claims; 

 . Furthermore, my lordships , as already pointed out, this circular goes against the
doctrine of proportionality. The Supreme Court, in cases like Modern Dental College v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018),
endorsed a four-limb test of proportionality conceptualised by Aharon Barak, the former
President of the Supreme Court of Israel. According to the test, a measure restricting a
constitutional right must, first, have a legitimate goal; second, it must be a suitable
means of furthering the goal; third, there must not be any less restrictive but equally
effective alternative; and fourth, the measure must not have a disproportionate impact on
the rights holder. The respondant, my lordships have not explored alternatives. We could
if permitted without any prejudice to any religion would like to draw your attention to the
mass bathing rituals and immersion of floral offerings in the river mihika which could also
be a major source of defilement of the river.

 It is therefore clear that Article 19(1)(g) is not the only right at issue in the present case,
but that Article 21 is involved as well as my client is being denied his freedom of
livelihood thus affecting his freedom of life.

SUBISSUE 2

 It is humbly submitted before this Honorable Supreme Court that, with all due respect
toward the Honorable High Court, the respondant is of the view that while hearing and
deciding the first appeal of the present respondant the honorable court should take into
consideration article 226 of the constitution

 In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984),the supreme court held that Article
226 has a much broader scope than Article 32, as it gives the High Courts the power to
issue orders, directions, and writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but
also for the enforcement of legal rights that are granted to the disadvantaged by statute
and are just as important as the fundamental rights.

 In Common Cause v. the Union of India (2018), the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that
the High Court has been given the power and jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs in the
nature of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus for the
enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose under Article 226 of the
Constitution. As a result, the High Court can issue relief not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights but also for “any other reason,” which might include the enforcement
of public responsibilities by public authorities.
 My lordships , environmental protection and economic development are not in conflict.,
but a source for innovation , create jobs , lift the economy.

PRAYER

 In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited the counsel for
the respondant humbly pray the Honourable Supreme Court to be pleased to adjudge,
hold and declare:
 The High Court of Konoha interim order staying the operation of the circular, until the
final conclusion of the proceedings, on account of the circular being ex-facie violative of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Aryavarta.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE :-

AND

 Pass any order that it deems for in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this , the respondant as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.