THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, KOCHI

PARTICIPANT CODE: E147

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

___________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN

CASE NO.___/2023

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE MATTERS OF:

INDISTAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ……....………PETITIONERS

V.S

UNION OF INDISTAN …………………RESPONDENTS

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONTSITUTION)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5

Statutes & Regulations...........................................................................................................6

Articles & Websites................................................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................9

ISSUES PRESENTED.............................................................................................................11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................14

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................28
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Serial No. Abbreviation Full Form

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. Anr. Another

3. Art. Article

4. Ltd. Limited

6. Ed. Edition

7. Govt. Government

8. HC High Court

9. Hon’ble Honourable

10. Ors. Others

11. SC Supreme Court

12. SCC Supreme Court Cases

13. Sec. Section

Statutes & Regulations

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
 2. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
3. Forest Rights Act, 2006.
4. Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
5. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Petitioners hereby humbly submits to the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petitions.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 I

Indistan is a Sovereign, Socialist Democratic Republic with a liberal Constitution guaranteeing

elaborate fundamental rights, including recognition of community rights. It attained its freedom
from its colonial rulers in August 1950, but the major laws in place were envisaged during the
colonial period. Indistan is a Federal Republic that adheres to the idea of decentralization of
power which made them bring about a Constitutional Amendment in 1992 to provide more
legislative and administrative powers to the Municipalities and Panchayats, which are considered
as the lowest unit of the democracy in the country.

II

The Indistan Government in 1980 passed the Indistan Forest (Conservation) Act with the sole
aim to protect and conserve the forests across the country. Section 2 and Section 3 of the Act
provides for restriction on the de-reservation of forest land for non-forest purpose. The Union
government of Indistan, on the other hand, also recognizing the relationship of the livelihood of
the indigenous communities residing in such forests has provided for an exemption to the above-
said rule by passing the Indistan Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act in 2006. Under Section 3 of the Act, it provides that Union Government can
allow the diversion of forest land for providing facilities such as schools, hospitals, ration shops,
telecommunication facilities, roads, etc. Moreover, Section 6 of the Act states that such decisions
can be taken after a resolution is passed by the respective Gram Sabha, such resolution getting
forwarded to the Sub- Divisional Level Committee and later being processed by the State Level
Committee. Thus, there is a proper systemic recognition of the rights of the forest dwellers and
democratic decision-making.

III

In February 2023, the Union Government marking a drastic shift in their forest policy, presented
the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and which was passed by the parliament. The
Amendment clearly, in its objective, provides that it is enacted to enable easier installation of
structures and facilities for national security and overall development of the society. The
Amendment also enables the Union Government to evict forest dwellers from areas that are
identified as areas for development projects. The Amendment also allows for the diversion of
forest lands by a Central Committee appointed by the Union Government, without prior approval
of the authorities established under the Indistan Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights, 2006. The Amendment seeks to redefine the purview of forest
lands in order to exempt certain lands from such definition, including plantations.

IV

Keranadu is a coastal state in Indistan with rich forest cover and a diverse population of
indigenous communities. The State Government of Keranadu has identified people who are
under extreme poverty and starvation, as they are struggling to adjust to the changes in society.
In the month of May 2023, the Union Government of Indistan constituted a Central Committee
under the newly passed Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 and identified certain
forest areas of Keranadu for establishing a military base, citing increasing Naxal activities in the
area, which is a threat to the larger national security of the country. Therefore, the committee
recommended for immediate eviction of the indigenous communities in the area, who are
popularly known as the ‘Irular.’ Irular are known for their lifestyle, which is closely intertwined
with the forest and its ecosystem.

Madhu, aged 20, is a member of the Irular community, who was translocated without proper
awareness and time to cope with the sudden changes in their lifestyle. The sudden shift in the
locality and lifestyle had made the entire community clueless, with little help from either the
State or Union Government, including for the family of Madhu. Poverty and starvation became
common in Irular settlements, as they were restricted from entering the forest to collect food. On
20th June 2023, Madhu went to the nearby town to feed his sick mother and sister, and since he
had no money, he took a couple of fruits from a vegetable stall and tried to escape. The villagers
captured Madhu, claiming him to be a thief, and physically abused him by tying him to a tree.
Madhu succumbed to the injuries caused to his head by the villagers. The death of Madhu
created great havoc in the civil society of Keranadu, and the villagers who committed the crime
were arrested and prosecuted.

VI

Some activist groups who stand for the rights of the forest dwellers claimed that the root of the
problem was much deeper since the indigenous communities were forced out of their natural
settlements inside forests, which had caused such a misfortune. They blamed the newly passed
Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, which had completely obliterated indigenous
communities' rights and encouraged rampant deforestation under the guise of development and
state activities.

VII

The Indistan Young Lawyers Association, a litigation activist group, filed a Public Interest
Litigation before the Supreme Court of Indistan in August 2023 challenging the constitutional
validity of the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, claiming that it was violating the
basic fundamental rights guaranteed to the indigenous communities under Article 21. Moreover,
they also highlighted that the Act was a clear hijacking of power by the Union Government from
local governments, and that it is a threat to the federal features of Indistan. According to the
petitioner, the Act intends to increase the forest cover in the country and reduce carbon
emissions, but at the same time provides a very narrow definition of forest lands, thus enabling
more privatization and diversion of forest lands in the country.

VIII

On the other hand, the Union Government replied that the Act envisages a system that goes hand
in hand with the rich culture of Indistan in conserving its forest cover, and at the same time
enabling essential developmental activities. It claimed that eviction of the Irular community was
essential for establishing a military base to counter the area's left extremism. Moreover, the
Union government argues that the right to property is no more a fundamental right under the
Indistan Constitution; therefore, eviction for essential development activities of the State cannot
be questioned.
 ISSUES PRESENTED

-I-

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE or not ?

-II-

Whether the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 is unconstitutional?

-III-

Whether there is a fundamental right violation with regard to the Indigenous

communities with their eviction

-IV-

Power decentralization and basic issues

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

-I-

THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution , because the Indisthan
Forest Conservation Act, 2023 violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the indigenous
communities

-II-

Whether the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 is unconstitutional?

It is humbly submitted that the provisions of the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023,
passed by the Parliament of Indistan, is unconstitutional, owing to their intrinsic incongruence
with several central constitutional tenets.

-III-

Whether there is fundamental right violation with regard to the Indigenous

communities with their eviction?

It is humbly submitted that there is fundamental right violation with regard to the Indigenous
communities with the eviction from the forest lands they inhabit. There is fundamental rights
violation because Article 14, 21 and 29(1) of the Constitution are violated

-IV-
Power decentralization and basic issues
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE OR

NOT?

1.1 public interest litigation can be filed against the union of Indisthan

The indisthan Forest Conservation Act,2023 violates the fundamental rights. Under Article 32 of
the constitution, therefore the petition is maintainable against the union of indisthan.

Further, there is also a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
constitution. The act undermines the federal structure of indistan by uprising the powers of local
governments. The act allows for the increased diversion and privatization of forest lands under
the guise of development leading to the infringement of the rights of indigenous communities.

1.2 Violation of the fundamental right to life

The Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, violates the fundamental right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. The eviction of the indigenous communities,
such as the Irular, from their natural settlements inside the forest has disrupted their livelihoods
and exposed them to poverty and starvation.

1.3 Violation of right to cultural and community rights

The act infringes upon the indigenous communities' right to cultural and community rights. As
per Article 29 and Article 30 of the constitution, every community has the right to conserve its
distinct culture, language, and traditions. By evicting the indigenous communities from their
ancestral lands and forcing them to live in settlements that hinder their unique lifestyle, the act
undermines their cultural identity and communal rights.
1.4 Violation of the democratic decision-making process

The Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, also undermines the democratic decision-
making process established under the indisthan scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The amendment enables the diversion of forest lands
without the prior approval of the authorities established under the Act 2006 act. This goes
against the principle of participatory democracy and violates the constitutional guarantee of local
self-government for municipalities and panchayats.

Thus, it is humbly presented before the court that the present public interest litigation is
maintainable against the union of indisthan.
II. Whether the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 is unconstitutional?

2.1: Contravention of Constitutional Provisions:

Unconstitutionality is unfortunately an intrinsic component of The Forest Conservation

(Amendment) Act of 2023. This is because the provisions of the act have displayed a blatant
disregard for existing constitutional norms. Under the well-established doctrine of Parens
Patriae, It is the obligation of the state to protect and take into custody the rights and privileges
of its citizens for discharging its obligations.1

However, this principle has not been heeded and is absent in the central tenets of The Forest
Conservation (Amendment) Act, which contributes to the arbitrary and unconstitutional nature of
the amended act.

As per the 42nd Amendment Act of 19762, Environmental protection is a concurrent subject,
which comes under the ambit of both Central and State Governments, and by implementing this
act, The Central Government is absolving itself from its constitutional responsibility of
protecting the environment.

The new act heralds the arrival of unconstitutional alterations to the existing accords, such as the
exemption of clearances for strategic linear projects of national security and curtailing and
limiting the definition of forests to only government records. The recognition of forests as per the
landmark 1996 Godavarman judgment3 is done away with.

The Act also violates the environmental law principle of non-regression 4, which lays down that
environmental law can be only strengthened, not weakened.

The Act also violates constitutional provisions laid down with respect to language, in particular
Article 3435, which mandates the utilization of Devanagari Script and not Hindi Roman Script,
which has been utilized.
1
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, ¶ 35.
2
https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/amendments/constitution-india-forty-
second-amendment-act-1976
3
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/14617.pdf
4
https://leap.unep.org/knowledge/glossary/principle-non-regression#:~:text=The%20principle%20of
%20non%2Dregression,the%20common%20interest%20of%20humanity.%20(
5
http://constitutionofindia.etal.in/article_343/#:~:text=343.-,Official%20language%20of%20the
%20Union.,international%20form%20of%20Indian%20numerals.
2.2: Protection of rights of Indigenous People as provided for by The Constitution:

The Indigenous people are considered on the same pedestal as Scheduled Tribes 6 or Scheduled
Castes in India7 because of their backwardness8, dependence on basic natural resources for life
and livelihood, and lack of exposure to civilization9. Thus, their rights have also been construed
to be safeguarded under Article 244(1) and the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution. Therefore, in the present case, the indigenous people “Irular” can be considered to
be on the same footing as Scheduled Tribes.

These forest dwellers derive their sustenance, shelter, source of livelihood, along with social and
economic status from forests, therefore, for them, forests act as potent weapons of economic
empowerment in social democracy.10

2.3: Violation of Constitutional Test of Equality and Reasonableness:

It is a foregone conclusion that the considerable reduction of forest area and cover in the country
of Indistan renders it more susceptible to natural disasters and catastrophes. As a result of this
critical caveat, The Act fails to satisfy the requirements of the test of reasonableness under
Article 19. Moreover, the Government of Indistan has acted arbitrarily by neglecting the rights of
tribals and safeguarding and furthering the interests of non-tribals, despite the fact that the
movement of non-tribals in tribal areas was previously restricted in tribal areas, so as to avoid
and prevent exploitation11, and thus, there has been a violation of Article 14, on account of abuse
of power and arbitrariness in the actions of the Government.

2.4: Exemptions are unconstitutional and violative of Article 21:

6
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-342-scheduled-tribes-2/
7
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others, Writ Petition No. 180 of
2011; Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011, arising out of Special Leave
Petition No. 10367 of 2010; ILO Convention on Indigenous People, Available at
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/ normes/documents/publication/wcms_106474.pdf,
Last Accessed on 18th October, 2013.
8
State Of Kerala And Another v. Peoples Union For Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit And
Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001).
9
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors, AIR 1997 SC 3297, State Of Kerala And Another v.
Peoples Union For Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit And Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001).
10
Waman Rao v. Union of India [1981] 2 SCR1, Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. v. UOI (1996) 10 SCC 104.
11
Samatha v.State of AP & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3297, T.N Godavarman Thirumulkpad v.UOI, (1997) 2
SCC 267.
The Exemptions to forest conservation measures under the auspices of the new act violate the
rights of indigenous people to reside and live in the forest 12, their right to protect or conserve
their resources, and their right to access biodiversity, which have all been a staple of the rights
guaranteed to indigenous people under their right to life and livelihood, and it is apparent that the
act violates their right to life and livelihood as envisaged under Article 21 of The Indian
Constitution13.

2.5: Constitutional Provisions safeguarding rights of tribal and indigenous folk have not
been adhered to:

Article 29 of the Constitution14 and Article 27 of ICCPR15 states that minority groups should not
be denied the right to enjoy their own culture. However, the fact that people of Indistan are
potentially allowed to settle and reside in the reserved areas, belonging to the indigenous and
tribal folk, along with forcibly subjecting the indigenous people to the new culture, renders them
more prone to exploitation, as they are not prepared physically, socially and culturally for such
acclimatization to a heterogeneous society. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the indigenous
people should be rehabilitated prior to their relocation 16 to an environment that is conducive to
their right to life with dignity as ensured under Article 21. As per Article 47 of The Indian
Constitution17, The Government is obliged to take steps 'for the improvement of public health'
and the non-availability of financial resources is not an excuse in this regard.

12
Section 3, The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dweller Act, 2006.
13
https://rshrc.rajasthan.gov.in/writereaddata/Publications/202208290143461701052HUMAN-RIGHTS-
ARTICLE-21.pdf
14
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-29-protection-of-interests-of-minorities/
15
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-
political-rights#:~:text=or%20other%20status.-,Article%2027,to%20use%20their%20own%20language.
16
In accordance with Article 12 of the ILO Convention, 107.
17
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-47-duty-of-the-state-to-raise-the-level-of-nutrition-
and-the-standard-of-living-and-to-improve-public-health/#:~:text=The%20State%20shall%20regard
%20the,of%20intoxicating%20drinks%20and%20of
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

III. There is a fundamental right violation with regard to the Indigenous

communities with their eviction
III.1 Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution is violated

3.1.1 Eviction of indigenous communities violates the Right to Shelter

The forest lands have been home to tribes for time immemorial, these lands
have been inhabited by their ancestors and these communities have developed
a symbiotic relationship with the forest ecosystem. Their culture and way of
life revolves around the forests. They get the resources to live from the forests.
Thus, the forests have become have become intrinsic part of the lifestyle of
these communities, and they have become inseparable part of the forest
ecosystem. The Indistan Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 was passed with an objective to
protect and strengthen this relationship between the indigenous communities
and the forests. It gave the Gram Sabhas the power to divert forest land for the
purpose of providing facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads,
telecommunication facilities, etc. Therefore, the indigenous communities had
the power to decide the use of their ancestral lands.18

But with the passing of the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, the
Gram Sabhas and other authorities under the Indistan Scheduled Tribes and
Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, lose this
power to a central committee appointed by the union government. The
amendment in effect enables the union government to divert forest lands for
the purpose of overall development and national security and to execute this
the amendment also allows eviction of forest dwellers from the identified
areas. This means that the right to shelter of these indigenous communities is
threatened.

18
Prabhu, Pradip (2022) "Inclusion in Law and Exclusion in Praxis: The Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006," Socio-Legal Review: Vol. 6:
Iss. 1, Article 4.

Page 16 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

In 1981, the Supreme Court, in the case Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of
Delhi,19 stated “We think that the right to life includes the right to live with
human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of
life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities
for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving
about and mixing and commingling with fellow beings”

In the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Friends Coop. Housing
Society Ltd. (1996),20 the Supreme Court affirmed that “The right to shelter is
a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence under Article 19
(1) (e) and the right to life under Article 21”

The Amendment Act does not even provide for any mechanism to provide
them with another shelter if evicted. They can be evicted easily in the name of
national security or development, which was not the case earlier before the
amendment came in. Earlier they had power to allow facilities for
development without letting their right to shelter being affected. However,
with the amendment they lose this and are at risk of eviction. Right to shelter
springs from the right to life and personal liberty as held the Supreme Court in
the mentioned cases. Hence the right to life of indigenous communities is
violated when faced with such eviction.

3.1.2 Right to Livelihood of the indigenous communities is violated

The indigenous communities are heavily dependent on forests for their

survival. They have been living in the forests for time immemorial hence their
lifestyle is intertwined with the forest to a great extent. They get their
resources from forest to live. They are not familiar with the lifestyle of people
living in non-forest areas. The skills and practices they have, are learnt by
them in order to survive and live in forest. Hence evicting them from their
lands, will render their skills ineffectual and will not be a position provide for
themselves. There has already been case of the Irular tribe from Keranadu,

19
Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746
20
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd., 1996 AIR 114

Page 17 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

who have been evicted from the forest area for the purpose of establishing a
military base.

The Irular tribe has only been provided with a temporary settlement on the
outskirts of a nearby town, whereas their lifestyle is firmly intertwined with
the forest and its ecosystem; This has threatened their right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21. They were evicted and translocated at short notice,
without awareness and without time to cope with the sudden changes in their
lifestyle. This negative effect on their lifestyle can also be ascertained from the
case of the mob lynching of Madhu, a member of the Irular tribe who got
evicted and displaced. Due to a sudden change in lifestyle in his community, it
is facing poverty and starvation and Madhu who went to nearby town to get
food to feed his sick mother and sister, did not have money with him and he
stole a couple of fruits; and he was caught by the villagers and got lynched by
them. This shows that the eviction has made the tribe quite vulnerable to
violence from communities outside forests.

Indigenous communities depend on the forest land for their livelihood. If they
are evicted from the forest lands then its a violation of their right to livelihood
and hence a violation of their fundamental right.

The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 21

popularly known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case” a five-judge bench of the
Court implied that ‘right to livelihood’ is borne out of the ‘right to life’, as no
person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of Livelihood.

The court also opined that “The state may not by affirmative action, be
compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens.
But any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to
the just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as
offending the right to life conferred in Article 21.”

In this case the court applied the Jeremy Bentham “principle of utility”, Justice
Chandrachud while deciding this case entirely followed the principle of utility

21
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545
Page 18 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

as given by Bentham and held that the end aim of the legislature should be the
happiness of the people and the general utility must be the guiding principle.22

This principle should also be applied in the present case because eviction of
the indigenous communities results in them not being able to utilize the forest
resources, which they are heavily dependent on. Here general utility of these
communities is badly affected by eviction.

In Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana,23 the Supreme Court held

that the Article 21 protected the Right to livelihood as an integral facet of
Right to life.

Thus right to livelihood of these communities is violated because of their

eviction resulting in violation of right to life and personal liberty.

3.1.3 Right to Health of the indigenous communities is violated by eviction

Displacement of indigenous communities from forests often leads to food

insecurity, poor access to potable water and lack of sanitation, poor living
conditions, and most importantly the lack of access to health services. These
communities become vulnerable to many diseases. A study published by
Sama Resource Group for Women and Health (2018), titled ‘From the
Margins to the Centre ’24 and supported by the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) focuses on the health inequities among the tribal
communities, emphatically highlights the link between the poor health
status of tribal communities and their marginalised location in the socio-
economic and political contexts. It shows that dismal health conditions of
tribal communities are the result of poverty induced by large-scale
displacement.

The Constitution of India, does not make an express mention of health as a

fundamental right, however the Courts have interpreted the right to health as a

22
Schofield, Philip, 'The Principle of Utility', Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of
Jeremy Bentham (Oxford, 2006; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Sept. 2007)
23
Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 460
24
Sama Resource Group for Women and Health, From the Margins to the Centre , (2018)

Page 19 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

part of right to life under Article 21 through judicial pronouncement. While

interpreting and expanding Article 21, the Supreme Court in Francis Coralie v.
Union Territory of Delhi25 observed that right to life goes beyond protecting
limb or faculty and includes the ‘right to live with human dignity and all that
goes along with it, such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and
facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely
moving about and mixing and co-mingling with fellow human beings.
Recognizing that preservation of human life is paramount, the Court held that
the Article 21 of the Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve
life.

In the case of, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 26, the Supreme Court
held that although the DPSP are not binding obligations but hold only
persuasive value, yet they should be duly implemented by the State. Further,
the Court held that dignity and health fall within the ambit of life and liberty
under Article 21.

Thus the right to health of the indigenous communities is violated by their

eviction resulting in violation of right to life and personal liberty.

III.2 Right to conserve culture under Article 29(1) of the

Constitution is violated

As the lifestyle of the indigenous communities is forest-based, they have

developed various cultural practices overtime to which forests are intrinsic
part. Many indigenous cultures view forests as sacred spaces, often associating
them with their creation stories, deities, and spiritual beliefs. Forests are places
where rituals, ceremonies, and prayers are performed. communities possess
extensive knowledge about the plants, animals, and ecosystems within their
forests. This knowledge is passed down through generations and is essential
for survival, traditional medicine, and sustainable resource management.
Forests play a central role in shaping the cultural identity of indigenous
peoples. The land, plants, and animals found in these environments are
integral to their languages, stories, songs, and art.
25
Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746
26
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 812

Page 20 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Thus evicting tribes from the forests would threaten their cultural identity, it
would mean effectively banning the tribes from following their traditions and
customs.

The forests are home to tribes with distinct cultural practices and heritage,
hence it is of great national importance to protect and preserve these traditions
and the state is obligated to protect such places of national importance under
Article 49 of the Constitution. Evicting the indigenous communities from their
lands will result in state not performing its obligations.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,27 the Supreme Court held that the
‘right to life’ included the right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of
the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to
protect a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a
man’s life.

Therefore eviction of indigenous communities will result in violation right to

conserve culture under Article 29(1).

III.3 Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is

violated

Evicting the indigenous communities also means violation of Article 14 of the

Constitution, because if evicted these communities are denied equal protection
of laws. They are at a disadvantageous position if evicted as their lifestyle is
different from others. They need special protection as they are vulnerable
being forest tribes, the Indistan Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 provided them with few powers over
the forests, thus they had equal protection of law. However, with the
amendment they lose these powers and are at risk of eviction. Therefore they
have lost equal protection of law. Hence it is a violation of right to equality.

27
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978 AIR 1975

Page 21 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

III. Power decentralization and basic issues

Schedule eight and Concurrent List

The (Seventh Schedule) of the Indian Constitution's Concurrent List includes forests. Forests
and the protection of wild animals and birds were moved from the State to the Concurrent
List with the 42ndAmendment Act of 1976.In the given situation, the federal and state
governments must work together to create regulations, but in our situation, the amendment
also permits the diversion of forest lands by a central committee appointed by the federal
government without first obtaining the consent of the organizations established by the 2006
Indistan Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.
This arbitrary modification has immediately taken away the Gram Sabha's powers.

Contrary to Directive Principles of State Policy Article 40

A single hand The State shall take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with
such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-
government, as provided for in Article 40 of the Constitution, which enshrines one of the
Directive Principles of State Policy. On the other hand, the Government talks about state
benefits while the action violates that provision. In order to give Panchayati Raj Institutions
clarity, consistency, and strength, it is thought that it is urgently necessary to codify some
fundamental and important characteristics of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the Constitution
in light of experience and in consideration of the shortcomings that have been noted.

Second Administrative Reforms Commission Reports

A legislative council should be established in each State, according to a recommendation

made by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission to Parliament. The State Election
Commission should be given the job of delineating and reserving constituencies in order to
strengthen the voice of local bodies and reform the election process. It would be composed of
members elected by the local bodies.This directly contradicts the notion put out in the
Amendment.

Page 22 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

DPSP

DPSP has a crucial role in the development of laws and serve as guiding principles for the
government and the legislature in shaping policies and laws. DPSP, as enshrined in Part IV
of the Indian Constitution, embody the ideals of social and economic justice.

Cultural Heritage Preservation

One of the DPSP in the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 51A(e), places an obligation
on citizens to "promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the
people of India transcending religious, linguistic, and regional or sectional diversities." In the
context of the Irular community, who have a unique cultural heritage closely tied to the
forest, the eviction and displacement may be seen as a violation of this principle. It's arguable
that the government's actions should have considered preserving this cultural heritage in
alignment with DPSP.

Violation of Article 21
The plaintiff argues that the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, violates the
fundamental rights of the indigenous communities, particularly the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21. DPSP, which includes principles related to the welfare of weaker
sections, should be considered in interpreting Article 21, as it emphasizes the need to protect
the interests of marginalized communities. The petitioners argue

DPSP although non-justiciable, requires to be recognized when the basic rights of individuals
are being threatened. DPSP adds meaning and value to the constitution and blatant ignorance
of the same citing its non-justiciability does no good for maintaining sanctity of fundamental
rights.

Article 37 describes these principles as fundamental in the governance of the country.

In the case of 28Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the facts dealt with the
right to livelihood and housing, which are connected to DPSP principles related to securing
the right to an adequate means of livelihood and ensuring social and economic justice. The
Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
28
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51

Page 23 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

In the landmark case of 29Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) the Supreme Court recognized
the need to protect women's rights at the workplace, which aligns with DPSP principles
regarding gender justice and equality. The Court framed guidelines to prevent sexual
harassment at workplaces, effectively making this aspect of DPSP justiciable.

Hence, despite their non-justiciability, they play an important role in empowering the basic
fundamental rights.

29
Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

Page 24 of 25
 INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, submissions advanced and
authorities cited it is humbly pleaded that this Honourable Supreme court of India may be
pleased to:
1. Declare that the writ petition is maintainable.
2. Declare that the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 is Unconstitutional.
3.Declare that there has been a fundamental right violation with regard to the Indigenous
communities with their eviction.
4. The Amendment Causes threat to the Principle of Decentralisation and the Doctrine of
Basic Structure.

And pass any other order in favour of the appellant that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
the ends of justice, equity, and good conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: --/--/2023 Sd/-

On behalf of Indistan Young Lawyer
Association
-Counsel for the Petitioners

Page 25 of 25