Memorial For Petitioner - Team Blue (Batch 01)

MOOT MASTERS CLUB- OCTOBER MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020
TEAM BLUE
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition no. _________/2020
In The Matter Of
Dr. Freddy Thomas.……………..………...……………………….…Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors…………………….……………………………...Respondent
UPON SUBMISSION BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................... IV
STATEMENT OF PARTIES ........................................................................................................ V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................. VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... VII
ISSUES RAISED ....................................................................................................................... VIII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..................................................................................................... IX
PLEADINGS .................................................................................................................................. 1
1. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE
PRESENT CASE ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 .............................................................................. 1
1.2 LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONER ........................................................................... 2
1.3 PIL IS ADMISSIBLE ........................................................................................................... 2
2. ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE ........................................... 3
2.1 VIOLATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS .... 3
2.1.1 Violation of Provisions under UNCLOS ....................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Violations of Provisions under Conservation of Biological Diversity Act.................... 4
2.2 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 ARE VIOLATED ............................. 6
2.3 VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW ............................. 8
2.3.1 Violation of Article 48A ................................................................................................ 8
2.3.2 Violation of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Violation of Indian Fisheries Act ................................................................................. 11
2.3.4 Violation of Marine Fishing Policies ........................................................................... 12
2.3.5 Violation of Environment Protection Act .................................................................... 14
2.3.6 Violation of Deep Sea Fishing Policy .......................................................................... 14
3. THERE IS ACTUAL NEED FOR ACTIONS BY THE STATE IN THE PRESENT CASE . 17
3.1 NEED FOR ECONOMIC BETTERMENT OF COUNTRY ............................................. 17
3.2 NEED TO PROTECT MARINE SPECIES FROM ENDANGERMENT ......................... 18
PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 23
II
III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 21 ................................................................................................................................... 6
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 1993 .............................................................. 5

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON LAW OF SEA, 1982 .................................................. 3
BOOKS
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 952 (8TH ED.2004) .................................................................. 2
CASES
1. AMUL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ASSO. V. ITO, 2016 SCC ONLINE ITAT 10632
................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA , A.I.R 1984 S.C. 802 .................... 2
3. D.C. WADHWA V. STATE OF BIHAR, 1987 SCC 1 378 .................................................... 1
4. DHYAN FOUNDATION V. STATE OF BIHAR, 2017 ECRC 3 266.................................... 7
5. EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION V. STATE OF MANIPUR, PIL41/2017 ........................ 7
6. PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS LNIND 1982 SC 135 .......................................................................... 1
7. S.P. GUPTA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC. 1982
(2) SCR 365 .............................................................................................................................. 2
8. SUBHASH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, 1991 AIR SC 420 ........................................... 1
IV
STATEMENT OF PARTIES
The case is presented in the matter of:
Dr. Freddy Thomas………………..……………………………….………………PETITIONER
Versus
1. Union of India
Ministry of Law and Justice
New Delhi
2. Secretary
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries
Ministry of Law and Justice
New Delhi
3. Chief Executive Officer

National Fisheries Development Board
Hyderabad…………………………………………………………………..….RESPONDENTS
V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India Act, 1950. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the inherent
jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the present Writ Petition by virtue of Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The provisions under which the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble
court is herein as follows:
“Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by Clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.”
VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Petitioner most humbly wishes to submit:
1. That the Petitioner herein, Dr. Freddy Thomas is a renowned wildlife researcher and fisheries
economist, working in the field since 18 years. The Petitioner has previously worked in Nature
Conservation Foundation, a small Non-Government Organization in Karnataka up until 2010.
2. That in 2012 and 2013, the Petitioner filed two Public Interest Litigations in Karnataka High
Court and Rajasthan High Court respectively against the pollution of lakes and illegal use of
wildlife sanctuaries in these states. However, both the Petitions were dismissed due to inability
of Petitioner to appear in either of them.
3. That the Petitioner has been exploring the aggravating problem of by-catch since 2013 and has
observed that due to use of trawlers, gillnets, purse seins, etc., the fishermen end up catching a
large number of marine species which are either discarded on-board or sold in the domestic
market as fodder. The petitioner’s research also concludes that the indiscriminate fishing has
resulted in the endangering of several marine flora and fauna including Olive Ridley Sea Turtle
in the coast of Orissa, Deccan Mahseer in the coast of Kerala, etc.
4. That the Petitioner has also conducted various surveys to accentuate the effects of by-catch on
the nation only to find that not only the fishermen end up catching untargeted species, but they
also end up conducting overfishing. It is further perceived that due to rising demand for pet food
in poultry industry and fishmeal in aquaculture industry, by-catch has gained significant
importance. This commercialization deprives other fisheries for whom by-catch these species are
the main catch. Moreover, commercialization of by-catch has incentivized fishermen to use
devices such as bottom trawlers to catch myriad of fishes. These devices destroy the habitat of
the targeted fish.
5. That the Petitioner, realizing the sensitivity of the problem, wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture
and Farmers’ Welfare in 2017. The Petitioner has also contacted the National Fisheries
Development Board and informed about his research and requested them to take immediate
action. However n action has been taken ever since.
6. That the Petitioner has now preferred this Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
VII
ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO

ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT CASE?
2. WHETHER ANY ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE?
3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY ACTUAL NEED FOR ACTIONS BY THE STATE IN THE
PRESENT CASE?
VIII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. WHETHER THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO

ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT CASE?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that it has jurisdiction over this writ petition
by virtue of Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 vests this Court with original
jurisdiction to hear and decide matters dealing with violation of fundamental rights. The
present petition is in form of a Public Interest Litigation in relation to the hazardous fishing
practices which are not only polluting the environment but also doing permanent damage to
the ecosystem. The Petitioner herein, is a citizen of India, enjoying expertise over this subject
and is filing the present petition due to his concern regarding the environment, without any
personal interest of his own.
2. WHETHER ANY ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the law of land has recognized several
rights given to animal, including those habituating in the marine ecosystem. The Republic of
India is a ratifying party to several International Conventions, such as the United Nations
Convention on Law of Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity, among others, and is
therefore bound to provide certain necessary rights to animals. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has went as far as to include animals under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution and
thus, bounding the State to treat them with utmost honor and dignity. Other than the
Constitution and the aforesaid International Conventions, India also has several laws and
legislations in force, including the Indian Fisheries Act, Wildlife Protection Act, which
ascertain rights to all animals including those habituating in the marine ecosystem. Therefore,
it is contended that the animals have certain rights which are violated in the present facts and
circumstances.
IX
3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY ACTUAL NEED FOR ACTIONS BY THE STATE IN

THE PRESENT CASE?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the hazardous practice of by-catch is
causing serious menace to the environment, not only causing permanent damage to the
marine species bringing them to the verge of extinction, but also doing harm to the nation’s
economy. It is thus submitted that there is need for immediate action on side of state for the
sake of both- the marine ecosystem and the national economy.
X
PLEADINGS
1. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE

PRESENT CASE
1.1 JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32
1) According to the jurisprudence of Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, the right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceeding for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part
is guaranteed. In the case People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India,1 it was
recognized that a third party could directly file a petition , whether through a letter or other
means to the court and seek its intervention in a matter where other party’s Fundamental Rights
are violated.
2)
In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar,2 Supreme Court held that a petitioner , a professor of political
science who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper
implementation of the constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of
Bihar in promulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature.
The court held that the petitioner as a member of public has ‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a
petition under Art. 32.
3) The Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar,3 observed that; …. Right to live is a
Fundamental Right under Art.21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that
quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have a recourse to Art. 32 of
Constitution of India for removing the pollution of air or water which may be detrimental to
quality of life.
1
People's Union for Democratic Rights and others Versus Union of India and others LNIND 1982 SC 135
2
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987 SCC 1 378
3
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991 AIR SC 420
1
1.2 LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONER
4) Locus Standi is defined as the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum. 4 Art. 32 of
the Constitution guarantees a remedy for the violation of any right that comes under Part III,
namely Fundamental Rights. There is no limitation in regard to the kind of proceedings
envisaged under Art. 32(1) except that the proceedings must be appropriate and this requirement
of appropriateness, namely enforcement of Fundamental Rights.5
5) In 1981 Justice P.N. Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 6 articulated the concept of PIL as
follows. Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of
persons by reasons of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in
contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such
legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of
persons by reasons of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of public can
maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Art.
226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of
persons, in this court under Art. 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal injury caused to such a
person or determinate class of persons.
1.3 PIL IS ADMISSIBLE
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - in a PIL brought against Ganga water pollution so
as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme Court held that the petitioner,
although not a riparian owner, is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory
provisions, as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of
Ganga water.
4
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 952 (8th ed.2004)
5
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , A.I.R 1984 S.C. 802
6
S.P. Gupta and Others etc. etc. v. Union of India and Others etc. 1982 (2) SCR 365
2
2. ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE
6) It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the law of land has recognized several
rights given to animal, including those habituating in the marine ecosystem. The Republic of
India is a ratifying party to several International Conventions, such as the United Nations
Convention on Law of Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity, among others, and is
therefore bound to provide certain necessary rights to animals. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
went as far as to include animals under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution and thus,
bounding the State to treat them with utmost honor and dignity. Other than the Constitution and
the aforesaid International Conventions, India also has several laws and legislations in force,
including the Indian Fisheries Act, Wildlife Protection Act, which ascertain rights to all animals
including those habituating in the marine ecosystem. Therefore, it is contended that the animals
have certain rights which are violated in the present facts and circumstances.
2.1 VIOLATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
2.1.1 Violation of Provisions under UNCLOS
7) India is a ratifying party to the United Nations Convention on Law of Sea, 1982, having ratified
it on 29th day of June, 1994, and is therefore bound to abide by the several provisions under it,
including those relating to conservation of marine resources.
8) Article 617 of the convention lays obligation on State to conserve living resources in the waters
falling under its Exclusive Economic Zone. It requires the State to determine an allowable catch
and ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the maintenance of the
living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation. It also
requires the State to design certain measures to maintain or restore populations of harvested
species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
Article 61 UNCLOS: “Conservation of the living resources
7
Art. 61, UNCLOS.
3
1. The coastal State shall determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its
exclusive economic zone.
2. The coastal State, taking into account the best scientific evidence available to it,
shall ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the
maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not
endangered by over-exploitation. As appropriate, the coastal State and competent
international organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, shall
cooperate to this end.
3. Such measures shall also be designed to maintain or restore populations of
harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, as
qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the economic
needs of coastal fishing communities and the special requirements of developing
States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and
any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether
subregional, regional or global…”
9) Furthermore, Article 192 also obligates a State to protect and preserve the marine environment. 8
In line with the said Article 192, Article 194(1)9 of the Convention puts responsibility on the
State to take all measures that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the
marine environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means at their
disposal. It has been clarified under Article 194(3)10 that the term ‘pollution’ includes pollution
from all kinds of sources including those which have been explicitly mentioned therein.
10) “States shall take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this Convention that are
necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source, using for this
purpose the best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they shall
endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection.”
2.1.2 Violations of Provisions under Conservation of Biological Diversity Act
8
Article 192, UNCLOS.
9
Article 194(1) UNCLOS.
10
Article 194(3) UNCLOS.
4
11) India is a ratifying party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993, having ratified it on
the 18th day of February, 1994, and is therefore bound by all of the the provisions pertaining to
conservation of marine life, enshrined thereunder. The convention has laid numerous obligations
on its ratifying member states to take necessary and appropriate measures to conservation of
marine life.
12) Article 6 of the Convention obligates the Member State to develop national strategies, plans,
programs for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and to integrate the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectorial or cross sectorial
plans, programs and policies.11
It reads: “Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular
conditions and capabilities:
(a) Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing
strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia, the measures set
out in this Convention relevant to the Contracting Party concerned; and
(b) Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans,
programmes and policies.”
13) Further, Article 8 of the Convention requires the State, for ‘in-situ’ conservation,
to:
(c) “(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need
to be taken to conserve biological diversity
(d) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and
management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken
to conserve biological diversity
(e) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of
viable populations of species in natural surroundings
(f) (f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of
threatened species, inter alia, through the development and implementation of
plans or other management strategies
11
Article 6, CBD.
5
(i) Endeavour to provide the conditions needed for compatibility between present
uses and the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its
components:
(g) (k) Develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions
for the protection of threatened species and populations.”
14) Further, Article 10 of the Convention obligates the State to take appropriate measures for
sustainable use of biological components.12 It requires the State to adopt measures relating to the
use of biological resources to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity and also
support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where
biological diversity has been reduced.
2.2 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 ARE VIOLATED
15) Also known as the Procedural Magna Carta for Protecting Life and Liberty, the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India ensures that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.13 Article 21 reads: “No person shall be deprived of
his personal life and liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Supreme
Court of India, through its successive judgments, has undertaken an expansive reading of it
including under it the Rights such as Right to Food and Shelter, Right to Education etc.
16) In the Context of Animal Rights being included in the Right to Life, The Supreme Court, through
an expansive reading, in the case of: Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja and Others,
has brought some Animal Rights under the ambit of the Right to Life. This case was an appeal
filed by Animal Welfare Board Of India (AWBI) against Tamil Nadu High court decision
allowing Jallikattu to be conducted upon compliance with the Tamil Nadu Act.
12
Article 10, CBD: “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:
(a) Integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources into national decision-
making;
(b) Adopt measures relating to the use of biological resources to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological
diversity;
(d) Support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological
diversity has been reduced; and ….”
13
Article 21, Constitution of India Act,1950
6
17) The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Petitioner therein and upheld the enforcement of ban
on Jallikattu, while holding that Article 51 A (g) of Constitution is the Magna Carta of Animal
Rights and making several observations to safeguard the life of animals under article 21.
Furthermore, regarding the question of Right to life of animals with regard to Article 21, the
Supreme Court notably held that:
"Every species has a right to life and security subject to the law of the land which
includes depriving its life out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution
while safeguarding the rights of humans and protecting life and the life has been
given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment
which includes all forms of life, including animal life which are necessary for
human life fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the constitution. So far as
animals are concerned, in our view life' means something more than mere
survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but to lead a life
with some intrinsic worth, honor and dignity."
18) This point of law, as observed by the Supreme Court, has already been taken as a precedent by
various High Courts and Tribunals to include animal rights under Article 21.14 The Punjab &
Haryana High Court has also cited the aforesaid case to include environmental, ecological, air
and water pollution as a violation of Article 21.15
19) Furthermore, that the scope of Right to life of is vast and casts an obligation on human beings to
protect animal life. This point of law was highlighted in the case of Centre for Enviornment Law,
World Wide Fund India v. Union of India, wherein, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 casts
obligations on humans to protect animal species from getting extinct and their conservation of
environment as part of right to life.
20) Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also held, in the case of State Of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and
liquor ltd., that environmental ecological, air and water pollution amount to the violation of the
right to life assured by article 21 of the constitution. Right to live with dignity becomes illusory
in the absence of humane and healthy environment.
21) Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in the case of MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath 1997 1 SCC 388 gave
Doctrine of Public Trust wherein a State is held as the custodian of natural resources and has
14
Amul Research & Development Asso. v. ITO, 2016 SCC ONLINE ITAT 10632. See also Dhyan Foundation v.
State of Bihar, 2017 ECRC 3 266; Effective Implementation v. State of Manipur, PIL41/2017.
15
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana
7
responsibility to protect flora and fauna and thereby holding that Right to life of animals as a
responsibility of the state.
22) In the present facts and circumstances, the marine lives are being mutilated by commercial
fishing which leads to an increase in bycatch. Ipso facto, there is huge overfishing which is far
exceeding the limits allowed by law and the overfished species are being thrown overboard and
left for scavenging sea gulls.The by catch among incentivized fishermen is increasing.
23) Furthermore, commercialization is also depriving small fishermen for whom these resources are
their main catch. These incentivized fishermen uses devices such as bottom Trawlers, gillnets,
purse seines and thereby reducing the marine habitat and sustainability. It also disturbs its
existence.
24) It is notable that the commercialization and by catch may make several species extinct like
Dolphins and turtles which are thrown overboard as sea dead. The disturbance caused to the
ecosystem thereby making the species extinct and disrupting the sustainable life is a clear
violation of article 21.
25) Applying this in the present case, it is most respectfully beseeched that animal rights be included
under the “Fundamental Right to life “guaranteed by Part iii of the Constitution and take
necessary action for breaching the Right to life of animals and thereby creating hindrance to free
and sustainable environment.
2.3 VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW
2.3.1 Violation of Article 48A
26) Article 48A of the Constitution16 places the obligation on State to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Article 48A: “The state
shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife
of the country”. Though the article is not judicially enforceable it may become enforceable under
16
Article 48A, Constitution of India Act,1950
8
the ambit of the right to life under article 21.

As has been previously mentioned, Supreme Court has interpreted and expanded the scope of
Article 21 to include animals under its purview, and thereby directing the State to show
compassion for all living creatures’ including concern for their suffering and wildlife. This
article was regarded as Magna Carta of animal rights jurisprudence India under this case.
2.3.2 Violation of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
27) Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 amended in 2002 and 2006 is the only act to focus on the
conservation of habitats and species. The act provides for:
”The protection of wild animals, birds and plants and connected matters with a view to ensure
the ecological and environmental security of the country.”
The act specifies that wildlife includes any animal, aquatic or land vegetation which form part of
any habitat.
28) The marine protection under the provisions of this act is through creation of Marine Protected
Areas and Marine Coastal Protected areas by creating 5 categories of protected areas like:
National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Tiger Reserves.
29) In the case of M. Pandithevar V. The state of Tamil Nadu, the petitioners seek to prohibit the
respondents from preventing fishing in the 2 Islands which were included in Marine National
Parks coming under Statute of WPA act 1972. It was mandated that no fishing activity can be
allowed anywhere near the said alliance as it is a protected area under WPA act.
30) Therefore the petition was not maintainable as the area was declared as marine national park
under the Act and cannot issue a direction contrary to the implementation of this act. The writ
petition was accordingly dismissed.
Furthermore, the act clearly specifies from schedule 1 to 4 the prohibited species and includes
marine animals like:
31) Schedule 1: Turtles, ten species of sharks and rays, sea horse, giant grouper, corals, sea
cucumbers etc.
Schedule 3: sponges
Schedule 4:15 mollusk species.
9
32) It is submitted that the act has focus on terrestrial organism and lacks focus on marinary realm.
The act does not specify the mechanisms to tackle the impact of bottom trawling and it failed to
recognize that marine wildlife can be a resource that should be sustainably harvested. Once
protected under this act there is no subsequent monitoring, evaluation of conservation status of
species and habitats is presented.
33) It is further submitted that there is increased illegal trade of sea cucumbers, sea horses and the
corals are destroyed which can destroy the sustainability of marine environment.
In the case of State Of Tamil Nadu and Another V. M/S Kaylee Industrial Chemical Pvt limited
and others there had been a counter affidavit in the Petition concerned about illegal catching of
marine fishes that are prohibited under Wildlife Protection Act 1972.The submission was as
follows:
The following species are prohibited under Schedule 1 Part 4 A: Coelenterates. This includes:
 Reef Building Coral
 Black coral
 Organ pipe coral
 Fire coral
 Sea fan
Corals are extremely slow growing animals and the counter affidavit clearly specified the
reasons for the concern of destroying corals. It was cited that the status paper on coral reefs of
Gulf Of Mannar Prepared by Zoological Survey of India says the coral reefs are under severe
threat due to industrialization, pollution and. mining by local people and it leads to extinction of
species. There is ecological damage due to this and it is illegal catching by fishermen. The corals
are damaged by trawlers that move inside the creeks and damage corals which is used as raw
material for lime industry. These industries cannot sustain on broken corals so exploitation of
corals is done.
34) The collection of corals and coral reefs for manufacture of lime is prohibited under Coastal
regulation zone notification 1991 and penal action under Environment protection act 1986.As
regards the submission of learned counsel for the forest department it was held that the sea farers
catching live animals and killing it by severing the external skeleton reef from the animal was
prohibited and under this regard action can be taken against petitioners. Learned Single judge
held that authorities can prevent the person from conducting such act.
10
35) Even though the Wildlife Protection Act clearly prohibits the illegal trade of prohibited species,
the trade is still carried on with no one legal case involving illegal marine trade heard to
completion.
36) It is also humbly submitted that the locally threatened species are not included and
prohibited species like knife tooth sawfish have never been observed. The lack of coordination
between the Forest department and fisheries officers at fish landing centers is also a major
concern.
2.3.3 Violation of Indian Fisheries Act
37) The Indian Fisheries act clearly prohibits destruction of fish by using poisons, explosives and
other machines that destroys the habitat and thereby disturbing the sustainability of marine
environment and ecosystem.
38) The act under section 4 prohibits Destruction of fish by explosives in inland waters and on
coasts. It provides as follows:
(1) If any person uses any dynamite or other explosive
39) Substance in any water with intent thereby to catch or destroy any of the fish that may be therein,
he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two months, or with
fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
40) The section 5 also prohibits the poisoning of waters. It provides as follows:
4. Destruction of fish by poisoning of waters. (1) If any person puts any poison, lime or noxious
material into any water with intent thereby to catch or destroy any fish, he shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two months, or with fine which may extend
to two hundred rupees.
41) Furthermore, the act also places the responsibility in State Government for taking action against
these prohibited acts.
Section 5(2) says:
(2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, suspend the operation of
this section in any specified area, and may in like manner modify or cancel any such notification.
Also under Section 6 it is specified that:
11
Protection of fish in selected waters by rules of State Government. (1) The State Government
may make rules 1* for the purposes hereinafter in this section mentioned, and may by
notification in the Official Gazette apply all or any of such rules to such waters, not being private
waters, as the State Government may specify in the said notification. (2) The State Government
may also, by like notification, apply such rules or any of them to any private water with the
consent in writing of the owner thereof and of all persons having for the time being any
exclusive right of fishery therein.
The act prevents the use of machines that destroys the habitats of fishes.
Section 6(3)
(3) Such rules may prohibit or regulate all or any of the following matters, that is to say:- (a) the
erection and use of fixed engines;
42) (4) Such rules may also prohibit all fishing in any specified water for a period not exceeding two
years. (5) In making any rule under this section the State Government may-- (a) Direct that a
breach of it shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and, when
the breach is a continuing breach, with a further fine which may extend to ten rupees for every
day after the date of the first conviction during which the breach is proved to have been persisted
in; and (b) provide for-- (i) the seizure, forfeiture and removal of fixed engines, erected or used,
or nets used, in contravention of the rule, and (ii) the forfeiture of any fish taken by means of any
such fixed engine or net.
43) The punishment is Arrest without warrant for offences under this Act.
2.3.4 Violation of Marine Fishing Policies
A comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy was launched in November 2004.The objective of this
act was:
 to augment marine fish production of the country up to the sustainable level in a
responsible manner so as to boost export of sea food from the country and also increase
per capita fish protein intake of the masses;
 to ensure socio-economic security of the artisan fishermen whose livelihood solely
depends on this vocation; and
12
 to ensure sustainable development of marine fisheries with due concern for ecological
integrity and biodiversity.
44) The main provisions contained in the policy are that protects the marine resources. The policy
underscores the need for a departure from the open access concept in the territorial waters
besides putting in place stringent management regimes. Promoting exploitation in the deep sea
and oceanic waters would be another approach for reducing fishing pressure in the traditional
fishing areas. It also provides for Harvesting of marine fish resources.
45) The policy advocates protection, consideration and encouragement of subsistence level
fishermen and technology transfer to small-scale sector and infrastructure support to the
industrial sector. There, would be exclusive areas in terms of depth and (or) distance earmarked
for non-mechanized (non-motorized) traditional craft. An area beyond this would be demarcated
for mechanized and motorized craft.
46) Regarding the Post-harvest operations the policy specifies that Total utilization of harvested fish
for food and non-food uses would be the central theme. Efforts would be made to fully comply
with international requirements in post-harvest care of catch so as to achieve highest standards in
food safety.
47) It would also be the concern of the government to ensure that the post- harvest losses are
minimized. The policy provides for Resource management and provides that Exploitation of
living resources within 50 meters depth zone is showing symptoms of depletion and in certain
belts in the onshore waters, it tends to cross optimum sustainable levels.
48) The policy therefore advocates a stringent fishery management system to be in place. Regarding
the Fishermen welfare, the policy mentions that Fishing is the sole livelihood for about 10 lakh
fishermen households along the coastline and this policy attaches top priority to ensuring their
social security and economic well-being.
49) The Environmental aspects are also discussed with focus on the effect of environmental factors
on the health of living resources needs increased attention in tune with the international
awareness on the issue. Health Hazards due to consumption of fish harvested from contaminated
water are also becoming a matter of great concern in many parts of the world.
50) The agencies responsible for legislation relating to environmental pollution would be urged to
implement them more stringently so that the impact of pollution on fisheries can be minimized.
13
Regarding the infrastructure development for marine fisheries it is provided that Development of
infrastructure for marine fisheries is of vital importance and should have an integrated approach.
51) The facilities would inter alia include jetties, landing centers, provision for fuel, water, ice,
repairs to vessels and gear. The concept of hygienic post-harvest handling of fish would also be
woven into the project. The legislative approach is also discussed with emphasis for enabling
legal framework is an essential pre-requisite for proper management and control of the fisheries
sector. As at present, the subject of fisheries is in the State List under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, the management and control of coastal fisheries are vested with the maritime states
and union territories beyond territorial limits in the EEZ.
52) It is submitted that even with the marine policies concerned about socio economic insecurities in
the marine environment and with the guidelines for sustainable marine operations, the rules and
guidelines are not followed in the coastal areas .The petitioner is concerned about the
enforcement gap of the marine policies.
2.3.5 Violation of Environment Protection Act
53) The Environment Protection Act defines environment as:

a) “Environment” includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and
between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism
and property;
54) The act defines hazardous substance as:
(e) “Hazardous substance” means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its
chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings,
other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment;
55) In the present case, there is use of hazardous substance that can be harmful to the living
organisms in water.
It is humbly submitted that considering these provisions present case is in clear violition of this
act
2.3.6 Violation of Deep Sea Fishing Policy
14
56) The DSF policy 1991 of the Gol should be seen as a part of the overall effort on the part of the
state and policy makers to globalize and liberalize the Indian economy. Such a policy benefits
only domestic and foreign private interests at the cost of the needs of the local fish workers and
coastal ecology. The experts are keen to point out that the resources targeted for deep-sea fishing
are unsuited for large-scale commercial exploitation.
57) According to an estimate, “The productivity of the deep-sea is computed at 0.93 t/sq. km as
against 10.75 t/sq km in the inshore sea”. According to the same estimate, “While the total
marine fish production of India in 1991—92 was estimated to be 24.70 lakh tonnes, the share of
the deep-sea fishing sector was judged to be just one per cent of this. Some 99 per cent of the
output came from the inshore sea and was contributed by small-scale mechanized and artisanal
fishing”.
58) The state of Kerala versus the Trawler Owners Association” of 1993. It is interesting to look at
this judgment since here the apex court of our land takes position on issues of development and
livelihood. In this judgment, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy had observed:
“… The Government of Kerala is perfectly justified in adopting the attitude that the public
interest cannot be determined only by looking at the quantum of fish caught in a year … (but is)
justified in saying that it is under an obligation to protect the economic interest of the traditional
fishermen and ensure that they are not deprived of their slender means of livelihood.
Whether one calls it distributive justice or development with a human face, the ultimate truth is
that the objective of all development is the human being. There can be no development for the
sake of development. Priorities ought not be inverted nor the true perspective lost in the quest for
more production”
59) Like DSF policy, intensive shrimp aquaculture has also resulted in a worsening of the
environmental situation and the displacement of local communities from their means of
livelihood.
60) In this case, the petitioner is concerned about the use of the trawlers, gill nets ,purse
seines which ends up catching in large numbers which are either discarded or thrown overboard.
61) This has actually resulted in the endangerment of various species of flora and fauna
especially the olive ridley sea turtle in the coast of Orissa and Deccan Mahseer in the coast of
Kerala and various other prohibited fishes like whale shark, shark and rat.
15
62) The petitioner is therefore concerned about the increased illegal trade and enforcement gap of
these marine laws. It is clearly evident that commercialization is depriving the small fishermen
of their livelihood by Increase in by catch and use of machines.
63) Therefore, the petitioner humbly submits that the provisions of both national and international
law must be taken into account for the protection of marine species and thereby ensuring
sustainability of marine resources and environment.
16
3. THERE IS ACTUAL NEED FOR ACTIONS BY THE STATE IN THE PRESENT

CASE
3.1 NEED FOR ECONOMIC BETTERMENT OF COUNTRY
64) The marine laws protects only the wealthy and affluent. The small artisan fishermen are still
living below the poverty line. There is discrimination in policies and statutes. During the 1990s,
with the introduction of policies of liberalization and privatization, the Government of India
(Gol) offered incentives to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in fisheries sector and issued
licenses to joint-venture and foreign fishing vessels. These export-oriented joint- ventures are
adversely affecting the inshore resources and are displacing fisher-folk from their secure source
of livelihood. The majority of fish- workers have employed traditional way of fishing while a
small percentage owns mechanized boats and big trawlers. “The marine fishing occupation has
been spread across nine littoral states covering a coast line of over 7,500 kms. It is the largest
community based traditional occupation in our country employing about 9 million people of
which, more than 80 per cent are subsistence workers”.
65) The fisher people all over the country have responded by coming together under the banner of
National Fisheries Action Committee against Joint Ventures (NFACAJV) and are struggling to
secure their due rights over inshore resources.
NEP:
The New Economic Policy (NEP) states that “India’s fishery resources being grossly
underutilized, significant opportunities exist for corporate units in the areas of preservation and
exports”.
This policy is further exploiting the conditions of small fishermen.
DSF POLICY:
The deep-sea fishing (DSF) policy was announced by the Gol in March 1991.
66) The main components of the DSF policy are:
*leasing of foreign vessels for operation in Exclusive Economic Zone.
*test fishing by engaging foreign fish vessels
17
*joint ventures between Indian and foreign markets in deep sea fishing, processing and
marketing.
67) The government has argued that the inshore fishery resources of our country are over- exploited
and the resources beyond this zone are under-exploited and thereby provide a good scope for
further exploitation. However, the exploitation of fishery resources off the inshore is not within
the technical capabilities of the traditional/small-scale mechanized fishing sector.
68) Thus, in order to bridge this gap between potential and production, the GoI has allowed private
Indian entrepreneurs to enter into joint ventures with foreign counterparts for exploiting the
hitherto under-exploited fishery resources beyond the inshore area. The government has granted
about 170 licenses involving over 800 vessels in joint ventures as a part of its policy to promote
joint ventures.
69) The DSF policy 1991 of the Gol should be seen as a part of the overall effort on the part of the
state and policy makers to globalize and liberalize the Indian economy. Such a policy benefits
only domestic and foreign private interests at the cost of the needs of the local fish workers and
coastal ecology. The experts are keen to point out that the resources targeted for deep-sea fishing
are unsuited for large-scale commercial exploitation.
70) According to an estimate, “The productivity of the deep-sea is computed at 0.93 t/sq km as
against 10.75 t/sq km in the inshore sea”. According to the same estimate, “While the total
marine fish production of India in 1991—92 was estimated to be 24.70 lakh tonnes, the share of
the deep-sea fishing sector was judged to be just one per cent of this. Some 99 per cent of the
output came from the inshore sea and was contributed by small-scale mechanized and artisanal
fishing”.
3.2 NEED TO PROTECT MARINE SPECIES FROM ENDANGERMENT
71) The marine stocks are decreasing. The endangerment of terrestrial animals in acts like WPA,
Biodiversity Acts, the plight of terrestrial organisms are considered but most often decrease in
marine resources are ignored or are given less attention.
72) Tonnes of fish caught through unsustainable fishing are being used by the fish meal and fish oil
(FMFO) industries which supply feed to global aquaculture chains. These are wreaking havoc on
18
fish stocks. The FMFO industry was considered a solace for fishermen as it purchased the trash
fish (which is not edible) that came in with the catch. But the scenario has changed as the FMFO
industries have now turned into a threat to the fisheries sector as the income from supplying to
these industries is driving unsustainable fishing.
73) Tonnes of fish, including juvenile and edible ones, are being caught, processed and exported to
various countries resulting in the collapse of fish stocks and marine ecology, imbalances in food
security and causing severe environmental issues, pollution and overexploitation, said the study
report,
74) Tonnes of fish caught through unsustainable fishing are being used by the fish meal and fish oil
(FMFO) industries which supply feed to global aquaculture chains. These are wreaking havoc on
fish stocks.
75) Indigenous fishermen communities across Indian coastal areas predict an end to fisheries soon.
The topmost reason they cite is unsustainable fishing driven by the income from the FMFO
industry.
76) FMFO industries buy waste fish or by catch (fish or other marine species caught unintentionally
while catching certain targeted species) from the fishermen, the trawlers intentionally go for
waste fish including juveniles and non-edible species of fish which were not earlier targeted for
fishing. The CM report claimed that these companies are causing the decline of local fish stock.
Juvenile catch is the most serious threat because of which many species have declined in the sea
trawlers use small-sized nets which makes it easy to catch juveniles.
77) For instance, as per the government rule in Karnataka, in bottom trawling nets with mesh size
more than 35 millimetres should be used and in other methods of fishing nets with mesh size,
more than 20 mm should be used. The marine industry is covered under mostly in state list and is
the obligation of state.
78) It is humbly stated that State Government gives very little protection for the enactment of laws
and studies shows that there are many trawl boats that use smaller nets than prescribed measures.
Up to the 12 nautical miles, the state government can implement laws (regarding fishing). From
12 to 200 nautical miles, there is still no rules as reported by the Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute (CMFRI).
79) Furthermore, it is a humble submission that overexploitation of the resources by using methods
like bull trawling, where the net is tied between two boats and dragged for kilometres to catch
19
fish and light fishing, where artificial lights are used to attract fish to a particular spot for an easy
catch, are being followed widely which is a major concern.
80) According to the CM study, in both Mangalore and Malpe ports, the investigators found that by
catch mainly consisted of juvenile and extremely damaged fish. “At both harbors, the
investigation team found several piles of pelagic fish, including pomfret, juvenile mackerel,
juvenile cuttlefish and silverfish,” the study said.
81) Juvenile fishing is considered a major reason for the decline of certain species. The CM study
said that FMFO plants have to be blamed for the decline of Indian oil sardine in many parts of
India. The study also revealed that in Vietnam, which is one of the world’s leading fishmeal
producers, unsustainable fishing practices has caused fish stock reduction and due to which boats
are regularly fishing in foreign waters which is prohibited.
82) The concern was discussed in Indian government’s Agriculture Ministry’s 2017 National Policy
on Marine Fisheries in India which had stressed on dangers of the fish feed industry. The policy
provides: “Use of low-value fish species in the fish feed industry is becoming a matter of
concern as it can lead to overfishing of such species and by-catch, and could undermine the
integrity of the marine ecosystem. The spread of fish meal plants in some coastal states and their
overwhelming demand for small pelagics (like oil sardines) has led to overfishing, resulting in
reduced stocks of small pelagics in some parts of the country,”
83) It is most humbly submitted that the endangerment of marine flora and fauna is a major concern
as the juvenile catch could result in fish extinction as well as restrain fishermen from a better
profit. Another issue with this that through juvenile catch, a chance of reproducing another
generation been lost.
84) The petitioners concern is that despite knowing the dangers posed by fish meal industry on the
traditional fisheries as they are desperate due to falling catches, reduced days at sea due to bad
weather, rising operating costs, debt, the power of contractors and non-fishermen in the business,
and still the big fishermen are indulging in overfishing, including the catching of juveniles and
wild catch, knowing well that there is a market for anything they catch. Those who can afford
trawlers, and their numbers are increasing, are shamelessly literally scraping the bottom of the
oceans to bring back catch, any catch, to survive.
85) The endangerment of marine flora and fauna also gives the concern of food security as the
endangerment of marine species will lead to decrease in food stocks and a greater sources of
20
protein. Significant quantities of ‘food’ rather than ‘trash’ fish are being diverted to the fish meal
plants. Local people rely on locally caught fish for their protein needs, and it is becoming harder
for them to compete within the new system as per the study pointing towards the imbalances it
creates on food security. It explained that agents of such plants bypasses the traditional auction
system and get the entire fish in a vessel to the factory. The CM report emphasized that sardine is
a staple food in the south of India and its decline has affected food security. “In June 2019,
media outlets reported that the drastic decline in sardines has left Kerala’s fishermen in crisis and
is affecting food security in the region as per the report
86) Trawl net fishers catch fish on a large scale, maybe in one net, they get five tonnes. When this
large quantity is brought to the land its price goes down, where the FMFO industries buy them in
large quantities. So in a way it is promoting destructive fishing.
87) It is to be humbly noted that there are many unhealthy practices that are being followed by the
FMFO industries. Apart from unsustainable fishing practices they also get fish from boats by
trapping fishermen. They pay an amount to fishermen in advance and get a full catch in their
boat. The government doesn’t have control over the number of industries coming up in the
country.
88) Furthermore, plants located along the Indian coast are violating the Coastal Regulatory Zone
regulations. It revealed that the investigators while visiting a few FMFO plants in Ullal of
Mangalore had found that there were no waste treatment plants for the industries. After fish oil
and fish paste was extracted, the remaining wastewater, called stick water, was dumped into the
backwaters adjoining nearby mangroves. The units visited did not have a wastewater treatment
plant.
89) It is alleged that FMFO industries loot fish from the sea and dump waste into the sea after
production. People living near the plants suffocate with a putrid odor. These industries cause
water pollution and air pollution. They dump effluents to the sea as well as to nearby rivers. This
is the major reason for endangerment.
90) It is humbly submitted that alternative fish feed sources do not result in social and ecological
problems. Fish feed made of food waste, mealworms, algae, is being globally discussed as
sustainable alternatives. But the industries and trawlers are actually disturbing the sustainability.
91) In 2012 in Kerala, there was a huge decrease in Indian oil sardine stock when the government
had introduced certain rules specifying the size of the fish to be caught in order to prevent
21
juvenile catch. The mesh sizes and shape of the net were also prescribed by the government. So,
strict rules on mesh size and shape can reduce juvenile catch. Strict adherence to standards by the
aqua farms can also be a solution. There are certain standards prescribed by Marine Stewardship
Council (MSC), Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), and IFFO (International Fish Meal
and Fish Oil Organization), the Marine Ingredients Organization. The fish farms accredited by
these standards accept only fish feed from sustainable fisheries. So pressure from the buyers for
sustainable fisheries can be a solution.
22
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed before the Hon’ble supreme court of India that it may be graciously pleased to:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure that the relevant provisions of
law are properly enforced,
2. Further direct the Respondents to make necessary changes in existing laws or enact new laws,
if necessary, to provide protection to the marine ecosystem,
3. Further direct the respondents to incentivize the fishermen for refraining from hazardous
practices, and
4. Any other relief/reliefs as the Court may deem fit to provide.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAY
23

Memorial For Petitioner - Team Blue (Batch 01)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Petitioner - Team Blue (Batch 01)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT MASTERS CLUB- OCTOBER MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition no. _________/2020

Dr. Freddy Thomas.……………..………...……………………….…Petitioner

Union of India & Ors…………………….……………………………...Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 1993 .............................................................. 5

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 952 (8TH ED.2004) .................................................................. 2

The case is presented in the matter of:

Dr. Freddy Thomas………………..……………………………….………………PETITIONER

3. Chief Executive Officer

“Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

1. WHETHER THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO

2. WHETHER ANY ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE?

1. WHETHER THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO

2. WHETHER ANY ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE?

3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY ACTUAL NEED FOR ACTIONS BY THE STATE IN

1. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE

1.1 JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32

1.2 LOCUS STANDI OF THE PETITIONER

1.3 PIL IS ADMISSIBLE

2. ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE

2.1 VIOLATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

2.1.1 Violation of Provisions under UNCLOS

2.1.2 Violations of Provisions under Conservation of Biological Diversity Act

2.2 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 ARE VIOLATED

2.3 VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW

2.3.1 Violation of Article 48A

the ambit of the right to life under article 21.

2.3.2 Violation of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

2.3.3 Violation of Indian Fisheries Act

2.3.4 Violation of Marine Fishing Policies

2.3.5 Violation of Environment Protection Act

53) The Environment Protection Act defines environment as:

2.3.6 Violation of Deep Sea Fishing Policy

3. THERE IS ACTUAL NEED FOR ACTIONS BY THE STATE IN THE PRESENT

3.1 NEED FOR ECONOMIC BETTERMENT OF COUNTRY

3.2 NEED TO PROTECT MARINE SPECIES FROM ENDANGERMENT

4. Any other relief/reliefs as the Court may deem fit to provide.

You might also like