TEAM CODE: JUMC-427

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF DENUDIA

Appeal under Article 32 of the Constitution of DENUDIA

In the matter of
STATE OF PUNDIDEEP.................................................APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF DEHAYA..................................................RESPONDANT

Most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of DENUDIA

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Content Page

No.
List of Abbreviations 3
Index of Authorities 4
Statement of Jurisdiction 5
Statement of Facts 6
Issues Raised 9
Summary of Arguments 10
Arguments Advanced 11
Prayer 18

2
4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
& And
¶ Paragraph
Acc According
AIR All India Report
CONSTI. Constitution
Cri.LJ Criminal law journal
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code,1860
Ors Others
p. Page No.
R.W.S. Read with Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
NGT National Green Tribunal
Sec. Section
v. Verses
W.P. Writ Petition

3
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1. Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors, APPEAL No. 39 Of 2012
National Green Tribunal
2. Almitra H. Patel & Ors. v. Union of India And Ors, Original Application No. 199 OF 2014
National Green Tribunal.
3. Ms. Betty C. Alvares Vs. The State of Goa And Ors
4. Art Of Living Case on Yamuna Floodplain, Misc Application No. 32/ 2014(WZ).
5. Wallace Bros. And Co. Ltd. V. Income Tax Commissioner, Bombay, AIR 1948 PC 118.
6. State Of Bombay V. R.M.D.C., AIR 1957 SC 699
7. Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State of Maharahstra.
8. State Of Bihar V. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329
9. Ramnandan V. State, AIR 1959 ALL 101
STATUTES REFERRED
1. Constitution on India.
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
BOOKS REFERRED

1. Constitution of India- M.P. Jain, Narender Kumar, V.N. Shukla

2. The Code Criminal Procedure-S.N. Mishra, R.V. Kelkar’s , Ratanlal & Dhirajlal .

ONLINE SOURCE
1. Indian kanoon
2. Manupatra
3. SCC online

4
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE HON’BIE SUPREME COURT EXERCISES JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTTUTION OF
DENUDIA.

5
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS
State where farming is overwhelmingly the occupation of the people, where stubble burning is a
common method employed in farming. Invoking the original jurisdiction of the supreme court of
Denudia under Article 131 of the constitution, the state of Dehaya has filed an original suit The
neighboring state of Pundideep, which shares the border with Dehaya for over 220 kms, is an
against the state of Pundideep for the impact of its farming practices on the health and well being
of the people of Dehaya- state of Dehaya v. state of Pundideep (o.s. No. 35/2023).
On another front, a large no. of young persons within the state of Dehaya have been diagnosed
with various lung ailments due to continued breathing in of heavy smoke-filled air. A study
commissioned by Dehaya shows the major causes of pollution as follows: - Industrial pollution
35%, vehicular pollution 13%, agricultural pollution 18%, improper waste disposal 19%,
miscellaneous causes 15%, emissions arising from the agriculture have been recorded 6 times
over the last two months and this is, with some variations, a yearly occurrence.
Pursuant to this an association claiming to work for the youth of country, termed as Dehaya
Youth for climate justice (DYCJ) have filed a writ petition against the state of Pundideep in the
supreme court under Article 32, for their compromised health, stating that the yearly increase in
the smoke content of the air is directly related tp their health conditions deterioration- Dehaya
Youth for climate justice v. State of Pundideep (W.P. No.2345/2023).
The state of Dehaya and Pundideep, while formerly a part of the state Ninjaya, were made into
two separate sates by a central law to that effect from 1 january 1998. As a large agrarian state,
but slow development, traditional farming methods prevailed in the state. As a result, numerous
farmers now have lands in both states. In 2016, the sate of Dehaya under the Air (prevention and
control of pollution) act issued a gazette notification (2016 notification) under section 19,
prohibiting stubble burning by traditional method, and the penalty therefore, was 6 months
imprisonment. Certain such farmers, having lands across the state borders were arrested by the
state police of Dehaya, and are now subject to trial as per the 2016 notification, opposing such
trials, pundideep Agriculture Cooperative (PAC) has filed a writ petition under article 32,
claiming violation of the righit to livelihood- Pundideep Agriculture Cooperative v. State of
Dehaya-(W.P. NO. 3154/2023).
While continuously broadcasting programme aimed at spreading awareness against stubble
burning and highlighting its “prohibited” nurture under law, new channels within the state of

6
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023
Dehaya also suggested that the state of Pundideep, despite being responsible for the deteriorating

7
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

condition of the people of Dehaya had chosen a state reflecting ignorance and were “ backward in
science and unaware of the messive issue of climate change”, for they chose not to enact such a
law in spite of effects of Dehaya’s governmental representative trying to convince them
otherwise. News broadcasting standards Authorities(NBSA) an independent body of countrywide
journalists and media personalities have filed a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution
against 4 news channels held and controlled by the state of Dehaya for showing “Biased,
incorrect and vindictive” and media campaign maligning the state of Pundideep staging to be
violative of and offensive to “ the standard of journalistic ethics or public taste”- News
Broadcasting Standards Authority v. State of Dehaya, represented through its chief
secretary,ministry of information and broadcasting and others(W.P. No.3728/2023).
State of Dehaya v. State of Pundideep(O.S.No.35/2023),Dehaya Youth for Climate Justice v.
State of Pundideep (W.P.No.2345/2023),Pundideep Agriculture Cooperative v. State of
Dehaya(W.P.No.3154/2023),News Broadcasting Standard Authority v. State of Dehaya,
representative through its chief secretary, ministry of information and broadcasting and
others(W.P.No,3728/2023) have been listed before the division bench of Supreme court for
admission on.
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1: - WHETHER O.S. NO. 35/ 2023, W.P. No. 2345/2023, W.P. No. 3154/2023, W.P. No.
3728/2023 ARE MAINTAINABLE AND CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER?

ISSUE 2 :- WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN BY STATE OF DEHAYA IN ARRESTING

CERTAIN PERSONS FOR ENGAGING IN STUBBLE BURNING IS SUSTAINABLE IN
LAW
?
ISSUE 3 :- W.P.No.3728/2023: WHETHER, AS PER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW THE STATE OF PUNDIDEEP IS HEL LIABLE FOR
EXACERBATING THE HEALTH ISSUES OF RESIDENTS OF DEHAYA ?

ISSUE 4 :- W.P.No.3728/2023 WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF THE DEHAYA NEWS

CHANNELS VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FOR THE REGULATION OF NEWS AND MEDIA

8
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023
CONTENT?

9
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1:- WHETHER O.S. NO. 35/ 2023, W.P. No. 2345/2023, W.P. No. 3154/2023, W.P. No.
3728/2023 ARE MAINTAINABLE AND CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER ?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case that has been presented by
the respected petitioner cannot be heard in supreme court as according to Sec 14 of National
green tribunal act under the Environmental Law the National Green Tribunal has the
jurisdiction and to hear this case.
ISSUE 2 :- WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN BY STATE OF DEHAYA IN ARRESTING
CERTAIN PERSONS FOR ENGAGING IN STUBBLE BURNING IS SUSTAINABLE IN
LAW
?
No, the sate of Dehaya cannot arrest certain person for engaging in stubble burning because they
have not extra territorial jurisdiction mentioned under Article 245 (1) of the Indian constitution.
So, it can be said that state of dehaya cannot arrest certain person for stubble burning.

ISSUE 3 :- W.P.No.3728/2023: WHETHER, AS PER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW THE STATE OF PUNDIDEEP IS HELD LIABLE FOR
EXACERBATING THE HEALTH ISSUES OF RESIDENTS OF DEHAYA?
No, the STATE OF PUNDIDEEP is not held liable for exacerbating the health issues of residents
of DEHAYA. As stubble burning leads to benefits of the farmer. Stubble burning helps farmers
to clear the weed, pests and rodents in the field. It is scientifically proved that the ash from
stubble burning also helps in nitrogen fixation in the soil which increases the fertility of the soil.
However, the biggest benefit and reason behind the stubble burning is economic.
ISSUE 4 :- W.P.No.3728/2023 WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF THE DEHAYA NEWS
CHANNELS VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FOR THE REGULATION OF NEWS AND MEDIA
CONTENT?
The Dehaya news channels violates the principles enunciated by statutory and regulatory
authorities for the regulation of news and media content. The dehaya news channel passes some
defamatory lines for the state of pundideep and for this defamatory line the dehaya news channels

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023
is held liable.

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:- WHETHER O.S. NO. 35/ 2023, W.P. No. 2345/2023, W.P. No. 3154/2023, W.P.
No. 3728/2023 ARE MAINTAINABLE AND CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER ?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that the case that has been presented by
the respected petitioner cannot be heard in supreme court as according to sec 14 of national
green tribunal act under the environmental law the national green tribunal has the jurisdiction
and to hear this case.
Sec 14 of national green tribunal states that The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil
cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal
right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of
the enactments specified in Schedule 1
Thus they shall first approach the national green tribunal and the case state of dehaya v. state of
pundideep with O.S. No. 35/2023 is not maintainable and cannot be heard by the supreme court
Also in case of Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors1 the case
went to national green tribunal and The Tribunal proactively suspended the Environmental
Clearance granted to the Project.
The Tribunal directed the EAC to make a fresh appraisal of the thought for environmental
clearance furnish and requested the Ministry of Environment and Forest to make a separate take a
look at the safety of the stated bird
Also in the case of Almitra H. Patel & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.2
The national green tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the cases the in which it held The
Tribunal directed each nation and UT to put in force the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016,
and put together the plan in motion in phases within four weeks Further, the Tribunal directed the
Central Government, state governments, local bodies, and all residents to carry out their
respective duties below the Rules with no delay.
Absolute segregation has been made obligatory in waste for strength vegetation and landfills need
to be used for depositing inert waste most effective and are a concern to bio-stabilization within 6

1
APPEAL No. 39 OF 2012 NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL.
2
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 199 OF 2014 NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL.
1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

months . The Tribunal ordered a prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, which includes at
land
Also in the case of Ms. Betty C. Alvares vs. The State of Goa and Ors.3 The case had been
initiated in the High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa as a PIL. However, on Oct 23, 2012, it
turned into a writ petition turned and got transferred to the National Green Tribunal.
The same in the Art of living case on Yamuna Floodplain A petition was filed on eighth
February 2016 before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, being Original
Application (OA) through Sri Manoj Mishra, a retired officer of the Indian Forest Service against
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
Several miscellaneous petitions have been clubbed with this OA and the respondent parties, aside
from DDA, became the Art of Living (AOL) Foundation, the Ministry of Environment & Forest
and Climate Change.
According to constitution
In the article 20(2) it is clearly mentioned about the protection of a person from getting
prosecuted multiple times the article guarantees the right against double jeopardy aa in the
following case the state of pundideep faced two cases one was filed by state of dehaya and the
other was filled by dehaya youth for climate and justice for the same offence thus attacking the
very principal of protection against double jeopardy as mentioned in the article 20(2) of the
constitution
ISSUE 2 :- WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN BY STATE OF DEHAYA IN
ARRESTING CERTAIN PERSONS FOR ENGAGING IN STUBBLE BURNING IS
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW ?
No, the state of Dehaya cannot arrest certain person for engaging in stubble burning because they
have not extra territorial jurisdiction mentioned under Article 245 (1) of the Indian constitution.
So, it can be said that the state of Dehaya cannot arrest certain person for stubble burning.
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (ARTICLE 245)
As regards the territorial jurisdiction, Article 245 (1) provides : “subject to the provision of the
constitution, parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of india and
legislature of the state can make laws for the whole or any part of the state.”
DOCTRINE OF TERRITORIAL NEXUS

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023
3
MISC APPLICATION NO. 32/ 2014(WZ).

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

Article 245 (1) provides that legislature of the state may make laws for the whole or any part of
the state. It implies that the state law would be void if it is given extra territorial operation, i.e. it
is applied to subjects or objects located outside the territory of the state. In WALLACE BROS.
AND CO. LTD. v. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER, Bombay4. In this case, a company
which was registered in England appointed an agent in Bombay. Through that agent the company
carried on business within the territory of India. In a year, the company out of its total profits of
Rs 2.4 million, earned Rs 1.7 million by carrying its business in territory of India. The India
Income Tax Authorities sought to tax the entire income of the company. The company contended
that the India Income tax Act, 1939 could not be applied to it as it was subject to English law.
The Privy council however upheld the levy of tax by applying the “ doctrine of territorial
nexus”.
The doctrine explains that it is not essential that the object to which the law is applied should be
physically located within the boundary of the state making the law. It is enough if there is a
sufficient territorial nexus between the object and state making the law.
In STATE OF BOMBAY v. R.M.D.C.5, The state of Bombay enacted the Bombay lotteries and
prize competitions ( control and tax) Act, 1948. The act levied a tax on lotteries and prize
competition. The act amended in 1952 sought to tax competitions contained newspapers. Tax was
imposed under this act on the income of respondent company, conducting a prize competition (
crossword puzzle) through a paper named “ sporting star” printed and published in Bangalore.
The paper had wide circulation in the territory of Bombay. A large number of people from the
territory of Bombay subscribed to the crossword puzzle. Keeping in view the number of
subscribers, the respondent company opened its collecting booths within the territory of Bombay,
from where the forms for appearing in the crossword puzzle were to be issued, fees collected and
results to be declared. The whole of the activity relating to the crossword puzzle was thus
completed within the territory of Bombay. Taking into consideration these facts, the supreme
court upheld the tax imposed on the company. The court held there existed a sufficient territorial
nexus to enable the Bombay state to tax the respondent. File the application of doctrine there
must be-
a) A sufficient nexus between the state making the law and the object of law. The nexus
must be real not illusory and,
b) The liability sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that connection.

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023
4
AIR 1948 PC 118.
5
AIR 1957 SC 699.

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

The doctrine of territorial nexus is not confined to taxing statutes alone. It is equally applicable to
all kinds of legislations and the challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation must be tested
by a reference to this principle. For instance, in STATE OF BIHAR v. CHARUSILA DAS, the
theory of territorial nexus was applied in respect of a public religious endowment.
ISSUE 3 :- W.P.No.3728/2023: WHETHER, AS PER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW THE STATE OF PUNDIDEEP IS HELD LIABLE FOR
EXACERBATING THE HEALTH ISSUES OF RESIDENTS OF DEHAYA?
No, the STATE OF PUNDIDEEP is not held liable for exacerbating the health issues of residents
of DEHAYA. As stubble burning leads to benefits of the farmer. Stubble burning helps farmers
to clear the weed, pests and rodents in the field. It is scientifically proved that the ash from
stubble burning also helps in nitrogen fixation in the soil which increases the fertility of the soil.
However, the biggest benefit and reason behind the stubble burning is economic.
Collecting stubble, transporting it, and selling it, is just not worth the time, effort or money for
farmers. They are already struggling from low income profession like farming, and adding more
expenses to it is the last thing they need. Stubble burning is the quickest way of clearing the field
before the next planting cycle.
We can also take example of brick factory. The chimneys of brick factory also emits lots of
pollutants which can harm the environment. The pollutants emit from brick factory are the fine
particles of coal, dust particles, organic matter and small amount of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
monoxide etc. these all are harmful pollutants for environment but government hasn’t yet taken
any action on these factories. So, the State of Pundideep is also not held liable for exacerbating
the health issues of the residents of State of Dehaya because pollutants which emits from brick
factories are more harmful in contrast pollutants which emits from stubble burning.
Also in coal fired power plants the coal is burned due to which lot of pollutants emits which are
harmful for both human and environment. In these power plants the coal is burned to generate
energy. When coal is burned it releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants. They include
mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and various other heavy materials.
Health impacts can range from asthma and breathing difficulties, to brain damage, heart
problems, cancer, neurological disorder and premature death. These all health effects can lead to
human death but government still not banned these power plants. These all effects are more
harmful than effects

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

of stubble burning. If government not banned these power plants then the State of Pundideep is
also not held liable.
Also, in case of nuclear power plant. Harmful waste is disposed of from these power plants which
can put human life in danger. A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the
creation of radioactive waste such as uranium mill tailings, spent reactor fuel, and other
radioactive wastes. This material can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for
thousands of years. These wastes are more harmful than wastes emit from stubble burning but
government doesn’t banned these factories. So, the State of Pundideep is not held liable for
stubble burning and exacerbating the heath of residents of State of Dehaya.
ISSUE 4: - W.P.No.3728/2023 WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF THE DEHAYA NEWS
CHANNELS VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FOR THE REGULATION OF NEWS AND MEDIA
CONTENT?
Yes, the Dehaya news channels violates the principles enunciated by statutory and regulatory
authorities for the regulation of news and media content. The Dehaya news channel passes some
defamatory lines for the state of pundideep and for this defamatory line the dehaya news channels
is held liable.
the freedoms of speech, assembly, formation of unions, free movement and residence across
India as outlined in Article 19(1) are subject to restrictions set by the Government under Article
19(2). ‘Reasonable restrictions’ as outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows for
restrictions in the interests of the security and sovereignty of India
in this case the dehaya news channels made some defamatory statements against the pundideep
saying them to be backward and very reason for the increase in air pollution in dehaya and also
an ignorant state.
By practicing this their right to express information and ignoring maintenance of public order
dehaya news channels has broken the rules mentioned under Article 19 (2).
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION [ Article
19 (2)].
The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19 (1) is a subject to reasonable
restriction. It is ruled that an action tending to violate another person’s right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 or putting the National security in jeopardy, can never be justified by taking the

1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

plea of freedom of speech and expression. So said the apex court in MOHD. AJMAL MOHD.
AMIR KASAB v. STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA6 held that, the coverage of the Mumbai terror
attack by the mainstream electronic media had done much harm to the argument that regulatory
mechanism for the media must only come from within.
In the instant case, it was noticed that the Indian T.V. channels had shown live, from begging to
end almost non-stop, latest development on minute to minute basis, including the position and
movements of the security forces engaged in flushing out the terrorist. This reckless coverage of
the terrorist attack by the channels thus made the task of the security forces not only exceedingly
difficult but also dangerous and risky.
Any attempt to justify the conduct of T.V. channels by citing the right to freedom of speech and
expression, had been said to be totally wrong and unacceptable in such a situation.
Clause (2) of Article 19 specified the purposes or grounds in the interest of which or in relation to
which reasonable restriction can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression.
SECURITY OF STATE
The expression “security of the state” refers to serious and aggravated forms of public disorder,
such as, rebellion, waging war against the state, insurrection. 7 Thus, the security of the state may
be endangered by crimes of violence, intended to overthrow the government, waging of war and
rebellion against the government, external aggression, etc. A speech advocating a change in the
system of government cannot be said to involve a threat to the security of the state, so long as the
change advocated is not unconstitutional.8 while speeches or expression on the part of the
individual which incite or encourage the commission of violent crimes such as murder, would
endanger the security of the state.9

6
Ibid.
7
STATE OF BIHAR v. SHAILABALA DEVI, AIR 1952 SC 329
8
RAM NANDAN v. STATE, AIR 1959 ALL 101.
9
STATE OF BIHAR v. SHAILABALA DEVI, AIR 1952 SC 329.
1
 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2023

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issued raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the counsel on the behalf of respondent before this Hon’ble court pray that it may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:
1. The appeal is not maintainable before the SC of DENUDIA
2. The State of Dehaya cannot arrest certain persons of State of Punideep.
3. The State of Pundideep is not held liable for exacerbating the health issue of residents
of State of Dehaya.
4. The conduct of Dehaya News Channels violates the principles enunciated by
statutoryand regulatory authorities for the regulation of news and media content.
Also pass any order that hon’ble court may deem fit in the favour of the respondent to meet the
ends of equity, justice and good conscience.
For this act of Kindness, the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.