4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TEAM CODE: 30

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

IN THE MATTERS OF:

INDIANA KARAMCHARI SAFAI SANGATHAN & OTHERS ....

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF BOMAI AND OTHERS ...

RESPONDENT

Appeal Nos. ___/2014, ___/2014,

CLUBBED WITH

WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/2010, ___/2012

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BOMAI

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….....V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................ XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................XII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES....................................................................................................XIV
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................ XV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED WITH THE HIGH COURT OF NERUDA IS
MAINTAINABLE.................................................................................................................1
1.1. That the Forum for Environmental Right has locus standi to file the present petition
............................................................................................................................................1
1.2. That the right to a healthy environment and livelihood under Article 21 may stand
violated...............................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 That the ambit of A. 21 is not limited to citizens of Aressia................................2
1.2.2 That Article 21 extends beyond the territorial limit of Aressia............................3
1.2.3 That the right to a healthy environment and livelihood are present within the
auspices of Article 21.....................................................................................................4
1.3. That including the river ‘Bhargavi’ in the Linking of Rivers Project may violate
Customary International Law.............................................................................................4
2. THAT § 3 OF THE LINKING OF RIVERS ACT 2010 IS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION OF ARESSIA...........................................................................................5
2.1 That § 3 of the linking of rivers act in ‘pith and substance’ falls within the exclusive
legislative competence of the states...................................................................................6
2.1.1. The object and purpose of the impugned section relates to subjects exclusively
enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule..............................................................6
2.1.2. The scope of the impugned section relates to subjects exclusively enumerated in
List II of the Seventh Schedule......................................................................................7
2.1.3. The Effect of the impugned section relates to subjects exclusively enumerated
in List II of the Seventh Schedule..................................................................................8
2.2. That no resolutions under Article 252 were passed by the State Legislatures as
constitutionally mandated..................................................................................................8
3. THAT THE EXCLUSION AND NON- IMPLEMENTATION OF LINKING OF
RIVER PROJECT FOR THE STATE OF VINDHIYA IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF VINDHIYA AND NORMANDA............9
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3.1. That Article 14 Has Been Violated.............................................................................9

3.1.1 That Executive Orders are considered Law and a Writ Petition passed against
the same is maintainable................................................................................................9
3.1.1.1. That Executive Orders are considered law....................................................9
3.1.1.2. That a writ petition against the executive order passed by Government of
Aressia is maintainable............................................................................................10
3.1.2. That the executive order of exclusion violates the right to equality as envisaged
under Article 14............................................................................................................10
3.1.2.1. That A.14 guarantees the citizens of States of Vindhiya and Normanda the
right to be treated equally with those farmers in the rest of India............................11
3.1.2.2 That the rights of the farmers of the Vindhiya and Normanda are being
violated under Article 14 by not including Vindhiya in the Inter-linking of River
Project......................................................................................................................11
3.2. That Article 21 Has Been Violated...........................................................................12
3.2.1. That the State has a positive obligation to guarantee A.21 of the Constitution. 12
3.2.2. That A. 21 extends to the right to water and the same has been violated..........12
3.2.2.1. That Article 21 extends to the right to water...............................................13
3.2.2.1. That the Right to Water has been violated..................................................13
3.2.3. That A. 21 extends to right to basic necessities and the same has been violated
......................................................................................................................................14
3.2.3.1. That A. 21 extends to the Right to Basic Necessities.................................14
3.2.3.2. That a violation of Right to Basic Necessities is a violation of a Right to
Life and Liberty under A. 21 of the Constitution.....................................................14
3.2.4. That A. 21 extends to Right to Livelihood and Right to Work and the same have
been violated................................................................................................................14
3.2.4.1. That A.21 extends to Right to Livelihood and Right to Work....................15
3.2.4.1. That a Violation of Right to Livelihood and Right to Work Violate The
Right To Life............................................................................................................15
3.2.5. That Article 21 Extends to Right to Socio- Economic Justice And Economic
Empowerment And the same has been violated..........................................................15
3.2.5.1. That A.21 Extends to Right To Socio- Economic Justice And Economic
Empowerment..........................................................................................................15
3.2.5. That a Violation of Right to Socio- Economic Justice and Economic
Empowerment is a violation of the Right to Life and Liberty.................................16
4. THAT THE LINKING OF RIVERS ACT, 2010 VIOLATES THE
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF ARESSIA AND THE PROVISIONS
OF THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980..........................................................16
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

4.1. That Purposive Interpretation Of An Act Can Be Done By Looking At Its Preamble
And The Same Helps Ascertain Environmental Rights...................................................16
4.1.1 That purposive interpretation of an act can be done by looking at its Preamble:
......................................................................................................................................16
4.2. That The Environmental Rights Of The Citizens Of Aressia Have Been Violated
Under The Environment Protection Act 1986 (EPA)......................................................17
4.3. That ‘Reasonable Person’s Test Determines Which Right Is Given Precedence And
The Environmental Rights Take Precedence In The Present Case..................................18
4.3.1. That the Reasonable Person’s Test is used to determine the right be given
precedence....................................................................................................................18
4.3.2. That Environmental rights are to be given precedence......................................18
4.4. That Environmental Rights Are Governed By The Doctrines Of Precautionary
Principle And Sustainable Development And The Same Have Been Breached..............19
4.4.1. That the doctrines of Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development
govern environmental rights........................................................................................19
4.4.2. That the doctrines have not been adhered to......................................................20
4.5. That The Doctrine Of Public Trust Is To Be Exercised By The Government And
The Non- Exercising Of The Same Has Violated Environmental Rights Of The Citizens
Of Aressia.........................................................................................................................20
4.5.1. That the Doctrine of Public Trust is to be exercised by the Government of India.
......................................................................................................................................20
4.5.2.That the Doctrine has not been followed............................................................21
4.6. That the forest (conservation) act’s object is to prevent deforestation and the same
has not been adhered to....................................................................................................21
4.6.1.That the objective of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is to Prevent
Deforestation................................................................................................................21
4.6.2. The Objective of the FC Act has not been adhered to.......................................22
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................22

Index of Authorities

STATUTES

City of San Franciso, Precautionary Principle Ordinance.......................................................29

Constitution of India.........................................................................................................passim
BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATISES

A. ROSENCRANZ& S. RUSTOMJEE, CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, 1995,

25 Envir. Pol. & Law...........................................................................................................28
ARVIND P. DATAR, DATAR ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Wadhwa & Company, ed.2001. . .25
C. RAMACHANDRAIAH, DRINKING WATER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 8 (Feb. 24 - Mar. 2, 2001).................................................23
CAMERON, J., & ABOUCHAR, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
OF LAW AND POLICY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, Boston College
International And Comparative Law Review, 2001.............................................................30
CHARMIAN BARTON, PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN AUSTRALIA, Vol. 22, 1988, Harv. Env.
L. Rev...................................................................................................................................28
CHRISTOPHER S. FORD, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION:
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, Duke Journal Of
Constitutional Law & Public Policy Special Issue, Vol. 7 No. 2 2012................................13
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, C.K. Thakker & S.S.
Subramani & T. S. Doabia & B. P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 6, 8th ed. 2012..............................11
D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, C.K. Thakker & S.S.
Subramani& T. S. Doabia & B. P. Banerjee eds., Vol. 8, 8th ed. 2012...............................15
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Vol. 2, 2007......................21
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Vol. 3, 8th ed., 2008...24
G.P. SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 13th ed. 2012.............................27
H. M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, 4th ed., vol. 2, 2007..................................11
IND. CONST...............................................................................................................................14
JONATHAN NASH, STANDING AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, Columbia Law Review,
Vol. 108, 2008......................................................................................................................30
JOSEPH LAX, PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE IN NATURAL RESOURCE LAW: EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part I......................................................31
JUSTICE FAZIL KARIM, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION, Vol.1....................................24
JUSTICE T. S. DOABIA, ENVIRONMENTAL & POLLUTION LAWS IN INDIA, Wadhwa Nagpur,
Volume 1, 1st ed. 2005..........................................................................................................14
JUSTICE TS DOABIA, ENVIRONMENTAL & POLLUTION LAWS IN INDIA, Wadhwa Nagpur,
Vol.1, 1sted., 2005................................................................................................................31

iv
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

K. JANAKIKUTTYAMMA, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 9, No. 2/3 (April—
September, 1948).................................................................................................................19
M.P. JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Justice Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 6th ed.
2010......................................................................................................................................17
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Vol. 1, 5th ed., 2003............................................24
MITTAL, RIGHT TO EQUALITY AND THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT, The American Journal of
Comparative Law, Vol. 14, 1965.........................................................................................21
N. JAYAPALAN, INDIAN SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS, Atlantic Publishers &
Distributors, 2001.................................................................................................................20
NARAIN, VRINDA, WATER AS A FUNADAMENTAL RIGHT: PERSPECTIVE FROM INDIA, 2009,
Vermont Law Review..........................................................................................................23
O. McIntyre, & T Mosedale,.THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS A NORM OF CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW, Journal of Environmental Law, 9(2) (1997)...................................30
R. STECH,A CARROT AND STICK APPROACH? AN ANALYSIS OF THE UK GOVERNMENT'S
PROPOSALS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUDICIAL REVIEW, Journal of Environmental Review,
Vol. 15 (2), 2013..................................................................................................................11
ROSE MARY, RIGHT TO WATER: THEORETICAL CONCERNS AND PRACTICAL ISSUES, The
Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 67, No. 4 (OCT. - DEC., 2006)...........................24
SHAMNAD BASHEER & PRASHANT REDDY, “DUCKING” TRIPS IN INDIA: A SAGA INVOLVING
NOVARTIS AND THE LEGALITY OF SECTION 3(D), 20 National Law School of India Review
131, 142 (2008.....................................................................................................................15
SHYAM DIVAN & ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA, 2nd
ed., Oxford India Paperback.................................................................................................27
CASES

A. S. Krishna v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 297...............................................................20

A.P. Pollution Control Board II v Prof.M.V. Naidu and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 368-373 of
1999)....................................................................................................................................27
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof.M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Others, AIR 1999 SC 812.....32
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof.M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) &Ors., AIR1999SC812.............19
Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298..........15
ALAN GEWIRTH, ARE ALL RIGHTS POSITIVE?, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 3,
2001......................................................................................................................................26
Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors AIR 1987 SC 1073.................................36
Associated Provincial Picture v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223................................25
Atma Linga Reddy and Ors.v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 2009 SC 436..................27
Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374.....................................................15
BashesharNath v.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149 23
Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661.....................................................16
Byrraju Ramalinga Raju v. The State CBI,Criminal Petition No. 5454 of 2009.....................28
Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,AIR 2013 SC
3725......................................................................................................................................33
Chaiman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 998............................................17

v
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.................................................28

Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206 : 70 LRA 971.........................................................................27
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610..........................................................16
D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries, AIR 1986 SC 180............................................................18
Dalmatia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104..................................25
Delhi Development Horticulture Employee’s Union v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1992 SC
789........................................................................................................................................29
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 101.......31
Dr. Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hosur, Hubli and Ors. v.
Government of Karnataka, Housing and Urban Development Department, Bangalore and
Ors., 1999(2)KarLJ637........................................................................................................21
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC
746........................................................................................................................................28
Goa Foundation and Peaceful Society v. Union of India and Ors, 2014 (4) EFLT 60............31
Gramophone Company of India v. BirendraBahadur Pandey, AIR 1984 SC 667...................19
Gupta Enterprises v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Anr., (2008) ILR 1Delhi940. .24
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461...18
In Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 552..................................................22
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477..............................................................23
Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Debi, AIR 1970 SC 228...............................................22
Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 862...............................20
KasturiLal Lakshmi Reddy . State of J &K, AIR 1980 SC 1992.............................................25
Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation and Ors.v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators
Association and Ors., (1994)5SCC28..................................................................................22
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 3 SCC 569....................................................17
KR Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, AIR 174 SC 2177..........................35
LakhdarBoumedieneet et al.v.George W. Bush et al.,128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008)........................17
Louis De Raedt and Ors.v. Union of India & Ors, AIR 1991 SC 1886...................................17
Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 105....20
M/s Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Appeal Nos. 57 and 58 of
2013......................................................................................................................................32
M/s Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. Union of India &Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 575................................18
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783.........................................19
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji & Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1984 SC
234........................................................................................................................................22
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India&Anr., AIR 1978 SC 597..................................................17
Maneka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597..........................................................................25
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (1) Bom CR 499..................................26
MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors v. Kamal Nath & Ors., (1999) 4 CompLJ 44 (SC).............35
MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1997)3SCC715........................................................................19
MC Mehta v. Union of India, Writ petition (civil) no. 13381 of 1984....................................34
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors.v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1789.........29, 30
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 431................21
Nandini Sundar and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839...................................26

vi
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3751........................27
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh................................16, 17
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234.....17
Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 2003 Ker 18............................36
Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd.v. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 139
..............................................................................................................................................20
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180...................................17, 29
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR AIR 2000 SC 3689..........................................................25
Orissa Cement Ltd. (M/s) v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1676...........................................21
Panchayat Varga Sharmajivi Samudaik Sahakari Khedut Cooperative Society v. Haribhai
Mevabhai, AIR 1996 SC 2578.............................................................................................26
Pathumma and Ors.v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 771.........................................26
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 2330.......................15
Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee and others v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60
..............................................................................................................................................20
Premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1994 SC 2233..............................................23
Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissoner, AIR 1971 SC 1896......................................................16
R. v. Inspector of Pollution exparte Greanpeace Ltd., (1994) All ER 329..............................15
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628............................................20
Ramakrishna v. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538........................................................................23
S. P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149...................................................15
Sakhawat Ali v. State of Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 166.................................................................26
Satwant Singh Sawhneyv. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer&Ors, AIR 1967 SC
1836......................................................................................................................................17
Saujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631....................................................................25
Shashikant Laxman Kale and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., AIR 1990 SC 2114. . .20
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,AIR2011SC312................17
Smoke Affected Residents Forum v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors,
2002 (4) BomCR 479...........................................................................................................34
State of Karnataka Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,AIR 2001 SC 1560..........................27
State of Kerala and Ors.v. Mar AppraemKuri Company Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2375. 19
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Ors.,(2008) 13 SCC 5...........................20
State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and Ors................................................20
State of Rajasthan v. G.Chawla, AIR 1959 SC 544.................................................................20
Sundararajan v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 620.....................................................32
Sussex Peerage case, Tindal C.J., 11 CI.& F. 85, 110, 111.....................................................31
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228..............36
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar &ors.,1989(2)PLJR88.................................22
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75..........................................24
Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection
Association and Ors.,AIR 2010 SC 3645,............................................................................34
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 1996 SC 2715...................19
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.................................33
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, CWPIL No. 15 of 2010..........................33

vii
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011..................................................................18

Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380................................................15
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (2007)4SCC380...................................................16
West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241................................................................20

viii
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. The Appellant No. 1 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 132 of the
Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted.
II. The Appellant No. 2 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted.
III. The Appellant No. 3 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted.
IV. The Appellant No. 4 has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution. Leave has been accordingly granted.

ix
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The material case arises out of four separate claims: first, a claim by the Forum for
Environmental Right (hereinafter, “FER”) before the High Court of Neruda against the
Government of Aressia; second, a joint claim made by the State of Adhali and the State of
Parmala challenging the constitutional validity of the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010; third, a
claim by the ‘Save the Farmer’s Forum’ that the fundamental rights of the people of the State
of Normanda and the State of Vindhya have been violated; fourth, a claim by the Centre for
Environmental Rights and Advocacy (Hereinafter, “CERA”) that the Linking of Rivers
project violates the environmental rights of the citizens of Aressia.
I. BACKGROUND

2. Aressia is a South Asian country with a written Constitution and a federal form of
Government. The laws of Aressia are in pari material to the laws of India. A number of
rivers flow through the land of Aressia which are essential to the economy which primarily
based on agriculture and fishing. In the last two decades, failure of agricultural crops has
become a major problem due to shortage of water. This has caused many farmers to be
rendered bankrupt and many have committed suicide. In light of this, in 2009 the Aressian
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-governmental organisation, filed a writ petition before
the Supreme Court of Aressia stressing on the predicament of the people of Aressia due to
scarcity of water. The Supreme Court directed the Government of Aressia to constitute a
‘High Level Expert Committee’ to consider the viability of Linking of Rivers across Aressia
as well as the formation of an Environmental Impact Assessment body to study the potential
environmental affect.
II. THE LINKING OF RIVERS ACT, 2010

3. In December 2009, the two committees were appointed. One committee was
constituted for studying the practical exigencies of linking rivers and; the other committee to
assess the potential environmental impact of such a project. The latter committee consisted of
individuals from various interest groups such as the Central Government, State Government,
Environmentalists, etc. Pursuant to a favourable report from the two Committees, the Linking
of Rivers Act, 2010 was enacted by the Central Government. The Act provides for the

x
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

formation of the ‘Authority for Linking of Rivers’ (ALR) which shall be vested with such
powers as necessary to implement the linking of rivers in Aressia.

III. THE CRITICISM

4. The State Governments and various NGOs criticised the linking of rivers project on
the grounds that it would adversely affect the environment, change climatic conditions and
that the entire project was politically motivated and would involve corruption. However, the
Government decided to go ahead with the project despite the criticism keeping the
prospective benefits in mind. Subsequently, in telecasted interview, some members of the
aforementioned EIA divulged that there was political pressure on them to give a favourable
report to the linking of rivers project. This sparked extensive protests against the
implementation of the project.

IV. THE FIRST PHASE

5. The first phase of the project involved eight intra-state rivers which were to be
networked and made inter-state. Among them was the river ‘Bhargavi’ which was a trans-
boundary river shared with neighbouring country Boressia. Moreover, the State of Vindhya
has the largest wetlands in Aressia and it was feared that the project would irreparably
damage the same. In light of this, the Government decided to exclude Vindhya from the
project which meant that the people of Vindhya and Normanda would still face water
scarcity.

V. THE RESULTANT LITIGATION

6. Pursuant to the aforementioned factual matrix, two Aressian States moved the
Supreme Court claiming that the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 was an unconstitutional
encroachment on the power of the States. Due to the non-inclusion of the State of Vindhya in
the project, ‘Save the Farmers Forum’ moved the Supreme Court on the grounds that this was
a violation of their fundamental rights. An international NGO petitioned the High Court of
Neruda contending that the inclusion of ‘Bhargavi’ would violate the fundamental rights of
the people of Boressia, due to subsequent dismissal of the petition they are in appeal before
the Supreme Court
.

xi
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the FER at the High Court of Neruda is maintainable?

2. Whether § 3 of the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 is ultra vires the Constitution of Aressia?

3. Whether the exclusion of the State of Vindhya from the Linking of Rivers Project violated
the fundamental rights of the people of Vindhya and Normanda?

4. Whether the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 violates the environmental rights of citizens of
Aressia and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

xii
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF NERUDA IS

MAINTAINABLE

The exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is largely
discretionary in nature, it is argued that the present petition is maintainable primarily on three
grounds: 1.1] That the ‘Forum for Environmental Right’ has locus standi to file the present
petition since they are a special-interest group with a presence in Aressia and the writ petition
comes within the ambit of the doctrine of public interest litigation. 1.2] That the right to a
healthy environment and livelihood under Article 21 may stand violated since the
constitutional guarantee of Article 21 is not territorially limited; and 1.3] That including the
river ‘Bhargavi’ in the Linking of Rivers Project may violate Customary International Law
which automatically forms a part of domestic law unless there exists a conflict between the
two.

II. THAT § 3 OF THE LINKING OF RIVERS ACT, 2010 IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARESSIA

Under the federal structure of Aressia, the Union and the States are competent to
legislate for different spheres. In order to demonstrate that the Linking of Rivers Act 2010 is
ultra vires the Constitution it must be shown that the State Legislatures reserved the exclusive
competence with regard to the subject-matter of the legislation. To this end, it is argued that
2.1] the ‘pith and substance’ of § 3 lies within the bounds of List II of the Seventh Schedule
because the ‘object’, ‘scope’ and ‘effect’ of the Act are within the domain of the State
Legislatures 2.2] that no resolutions under article 252 were passed by the state legislatures as
constitutionally mandated in the event that the Union wants to legislate upon a subject-matter
enumerated in the State List.
III. THAT THE EXCLUSION OF VINDHYA FROM THE LINKING OF RIVERS PROJECT IS

VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF VINDHIYA AND NORMANDA.

Implementation of the project in the state of Vindhiya has violated fundamental rights
under Article 14 and Article 21 of the citizens of Vindhiya and Normanda as: 3.1] the right to
equality has been violated due to arbitrary implementation of project in some states and not

xiii
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

others. Arbitrariness is antithetical to the process of equality; and 3.2] right to life and liberty
has been violated due to a violation in the rights that have been read under A.21 such as Right
to Water, Right to Basic Necessities, Right to Social Justice and Economic Empowerment,
Right to Livelihood and Right to Work.
IV. THAT THE LINKING OF RIVERS ACT, 2010 VIOLATES THE ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

OF CITIZENS OF ARESSIA AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE AOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT,

1980.

The environmental rights of the Aressians have been violated by the Legislature on
passing the impugned Act as is evidenced by testing them against the Doctrines of Public
Trust and Precautionary Principle. The Preamble of a statue reflects the intention of the
legislature and the latter is required to ascertain the object of the act. Following the rule on
interpretation, we realised that the provisions of the Linking of Rivers Act are contrary to the
object of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Environment Protection Act, enshrined in
their respective preambles, which is one of granting environmental rights to the citizens of
Aressia. Not conforming to the objective specified in these environmental statues is an
explicit show of how the impugned act defies the environmental rights of the Aressians.

xiv
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1. Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts’ flows from Article 226, which confers wide
powers enabling the Court to issue writs, directions, orders for the enforcement of
fundamental or legal rights. The exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court is
discretionary in nature.
2. The Writ Petition made in furtherance to the Honorable High Court of Bomai, due to
the Maharajya Municipal Co-operation’s inability to furnish adequate safety measures to
sanitation workers is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana as; 1.1]
The Jurisdiction of the Writ Petition falls under the High Court of Bomai 1.2] Very
importantly, it violates the Fundamental rights given under Article 14, 17, 21 and 23 of the
Constitution. 1.3] The petitioner has the locus standi to file the current writ petition as they
represent a special-interest group operating in Indiana. The writ petition falls under the scope
of public interest litigation doctrine.
3. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution permits the
enforcement of rights specified in Part III as well as for additional purposes. This condition
necessitates the presence of a legal right, which must have been violated and here not only
the legal right but the Fundamental Right to equality, Right to Life, right against
Untouchability and Right against exploitation and forced labor has been violated.

1.1] Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution:
4. Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution bestows extraordinary jurisdiction upon the
High Courts of each state and union territory. It empowers these courts to issue writs, orders,
and directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose deemed
necessary to uphold justice. The article serves as a powerful tool for the judiciary to check

15
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

and balance the actions of the executive and ensure that the rights of citizens are protected at
all times.
5. Article 226(1) states, “Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall
have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”
6. Article 226(1) focuses on the extensive authority vested in every High Court within
its jurisdiction, allowing them to issue a range of legal orders or writs to individuals,
authorities, and even governments. These orders, including habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, serve the dual purpose of enforcing the fundamental
rights enshrined in Part III of the constitution and addressing other legal matters deemed
appropriate by the High Court. This provision underscores the High Court's pivotal role in
upholding the rule of law and safeguarding individual liberties within the territories it serves,
reinforcing the judiciary's indispensable function in ensuring justice and constitutional
adherence.

1.2] Violation of the Fundamental rights given under Article 14, 17, 21 and 23 of the
Constitution:
7. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of the High Courts to
issue certain writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Violation
of fundamental rights can be challenged under Article 226 by filing a writ petition in the High
Court. If an individual's fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian
Constitution are violated by the state or any other authority, they can approach the High
Court for redressal.
8. In the same way the NGO filed the writ petition on behalf of Rahul and his family as
their fundamental rights has been violated by the Maharajya municipal corporation and their
employees which we will we discussing here.
9. The petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court for the enforcement of
Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 17 of the Indiana Constitution read with article
14 and 21 thereof in view of the continuing violation of the rights against Untouchability.
10. Article 17 of the Indiana Constitution deals with the abolition of untouchability,
stating that "Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The
16
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offense punishable in

accordance with law."
11. Sanitation work has often been stigmatized in Indian society, with individuals from
certain caste groups historically being relegated to such occupations due to social hierarchies.
In Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court noted that the
official statistics issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for the year
2002-2003 “puts the figure of identified manual scavengers at 6,76,009. Of these, over 95%
are Dalits (persons belonging to the scheduled castes), who are compelled to undertake this
denigrating task under the garb of ‘traditional occupation’. The manual scavengers are
considered as untouchables by other mainstream castes and are thrown into a vortex of severe
social and economic exploitation. Their generation after generation fell into this vicious cycle
of exploitation and this leads to the violation of fundamental rights against untouchability of
sanitation workers. The matter related to Article 17 and violation has been further elaborated
and specified in the second issue.
12. Article 14 states, "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."
13. The swift dismissal of the case by the police, without thorough investigation or
consideration of the circumstances, violates Article 14. If individuals in other professions
were given more diligent investigation and legal scrutiny in similar situations, it indicates
unequal access to justice for sanitation workers like Pratyaksh and Rahul.
14. The unequal protection of the law in this scenario is evident in the disparate treatment
of sanitation workers like Pratyaksh and Rahul compared to individuals in other professions.
Despite facing similar circumstances of workplace hazards and fatalities, sanitation workers
are subjected to swift dismissal of their cases without thorough investigation or consideration
of the circumstances. This contrasts with the more diligent investigation and legal scrutiny
typically afforded to individuals in other professions.
15. Article 21 states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law."
The failure of municipal corporations to provide adequate safety measures to
sanitation workers such as Pratyaksh and Rahul not only violates their right to life
under Article 21 of the Indiana Constitution but also undermines their right to life
with dignity. This article guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty,
ensuring that individuals are protected from arbitrary deprivation of life. However,
this right extends beyond mere existence, it encompasses the right to live with dignity,
17
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

free from degrading or inhumane treatment. In the context of sanitation workers, the
lack of safety equipment and protective measures exposes them to life-threatening
risks while carrying out their duties. Descending into deep sewers or cleaning blocked
drains without proper gear puts their lives at risk, as evidenced by the tragic deaths of
Pratyaksh and Rahul due to asphyxiation.
16. The NGO moved to this Hon’ble Court for safeguarding the rights and health of the
sanitation workers all around the country. The petitioner also urges this Hon’ble Court to
issue time bound direction to the authorities, so that the promise of Article 17 came into
reality.

1.3] Public Interest Litigation:

17. In public law, the traditional rule that only the aggrieved person has the right to seek
judicial redress has been expanded to include any "public-spirited individual" or
"association." Even if a group of people shares a collective grievance, an unrecognized
association may initiate writ proceedings. When there's a public wrong or injury and the
State's action or inaction contradicts the Constitution, any member of the public has the right
to bring the matter to court. In the case of Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the
court emphasized certain factors in determining locus standi in public interest litigation: (i)
the credibility of the applicant; (ii) the apparent correctness of the information provided; (iii)
the demonstration of a failure of public duty; (iv) refraining from delving into the merits of
the case at the preliminary stage.
(i) In the present case, IKSS is a Non- Governmental Organization which has a
presence and influence in Indiana. The claim made by the IKSS relates to the
Gross violation of Fundamental rights of sanitation work and the prima facie
accuracy of the claims may be demonstrated by other independent facts such
as: (i) The deceased were never equipped with safety equipment for their
security; (ii) non-maintainability of official documentation of sanitation
workers by the municipal corporation; (iii)No official documentation leads to
no social security benefits for the sanitation workers and their dependents;
(ii) The petitioner here, i.e. NGO named Indiana Karamchari Safai Sangatan
(IKSS) on the behalf of Rahul and his family has the locus standi to file the
current writ petition as they represent a special-interest group operating in
Indiana as a Non-Governmental Organization who works for the rights of

18
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

daily-wage workers for the past 20 years and the writ petition filed by them
falls under the scope of public interest litigation doctrine.
The Petitioner here, in order to show the maintainability of this writ petition,
relies upon the rationale laid down in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and
Ors. Vs. The State of Madras and Ors. In this it was held that, “It is in the
interests of the general public or in the public interest that all classes of the
citizens of India are content and that their grievances should be removed. A
festering sore on the human body may eventually affect the whole body
though at first its effect is localized. Grievances or discontent in some
particular area or in some State or in some class of persons may eventually
affect the whole Republic of India, though originally the effects might be
limited. The removal of any grievance, abuse or discontent is a matter not only
where the discontent or grievance is genuine it may well be in the public
interest to remove such, though the public in other parts of India may not be
directly affected. It is in the public interest that persons should be governed
justly and well and removal of hardship and grievances of a particular class is
I think clearly a matter of public interest”

(iii) Furthermore, by this doctrine, the NGO moved to the High Court to
file the Writ of Mandamus to order the Public authority, i.e. Police officers to
properly investigate the matter of the death of Sanitation workers due to
Asphyxia also to strictly monitor if there is violation of Fundamental rights of
Sanitation workers by the Public officials by not providing them with proper
safety measures. It is further contended that the IKSS is a special-interest
group which is best placed to bring the issue to the attention of the Court.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that the IKSS has locus standi to file the writ
petition.

19
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENT ISSUE II

WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY

MEASURES BY THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS
GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
AND UDHR.

2.1] The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the
sanitation workers goes against the UDHR guidelines.

18. Indiana is signatory to the UDHR.1 The Member States have pledged themselves to
achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms2.

19. The deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul highlight a clear violation of their human rights as
outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

20. Firstly, Article 3 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to life 3. Both
Pratyaksh and Rahul were deprived of this fundamental right due to unsafe working
conditions imposed upon them by their employers. Pratyaksh died due to lack of safety gear
while cleaning a sewer, and Rahul lost his life while trying to clear a drain without proper
equipment or training.

21. Secondly, Article 5 of the UDHR prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment4. Both Pratyaksh and Rahul were subjected to extremely hazardous

1
Moot Problem
2
UDHR Preamble
3
UDHR Article 3
4
UDHR Article 5
20
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

working conditions without adequate protection, which ultimately led to their deaths. This
constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment inflicted upon them by their employers.

a. Additionally, Article 8 of the UDHR guarantees the right to an effective remedy

for violations of fundamental rights5. However, neither Pratyaksh nor Rahul
received any form of compensation or justice for the injustices they faced.
Pratyaksh's family was threatened by the contractor, and Rahul's death was simply
overlooked, with no accountability placed on the employer or authorities. The
point is further elaborated in point no. __

22. Furthermore, Article 23 of the UDHR affirms the right to just and favorable
conditions of work, including protection against unemployment 6. Both Pratyaksh and Rahul
were employed in hazardous occupations with no regard for their safety or well-being. They
were not provided with the necessary equipment or training to perform their jobs safely,
leading to tragic consequences.

23. In conclusion, the deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul represent a clear violation of their
human rights as outlined in the UDHR. Their employers failed to provide them with safe
working conditions, leading to their untimely deaths. Justice must be served for these
injustices, and measures must be taken to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the
future.

2.2] The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the
sanitation workers goes against the Part III of the Constitution of Indiana.
24. Human dignity postulates an equality between persons. The equality of all human
beings entails being free from the restrictive and dehumanizing effect of stereotypes and
being equally entitled to the protection of law 7. Rooted in the trinity of dignity, equality and
liberty, the fundamental rights that form the foundation of the constitutional makeup
categorically reject all forms of social exclusion, and imagine social reordering based on a
constitutional order that promotes justice, equality, dignity and liberty of all individuals. It is

5
UDHR Article 8
6
UDHR Article23
7
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v The State of Kerala and Ors. (2019) 11 SCC
21
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

humbly submitted that the Manual Scavengers have time and again being deprived from their
right to life [1.2.1] and equality [1.2.2].

2.3] THE FAILURE OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE

SAFETY MEASURES TO THE SANITATION WORKERS VIOLATED ARTICLE 21.
25. It was observed by Honorable CJ Bhagavati in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India case
that 8“The expression ‘life’ in article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal
existence. The right to ‘life’ includes the right to live with human dignity”. Pratyaksh inhaled
excessive amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and methane, while Rahul was
exposed to human excreta and sewage water. These substances are harmful and potentially
fatal, and being forced to work in such conditions without proper safety measures violates
their dignity as human beings. Providing a safety kit was the very bare minimum effort to be
taken by the Municipal Corporation.
26. As a matter of fact this practice is common and this has been admitted by the SC in
case of Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra9 –
“We see sewer workers dying in due to poisonous gases in chambers.
They are like death traps. We have not been able to provide the masks
and oxygen cylinders for entering in sewer chambers, we cannot leave
them to die like this and avoid tortuous liability concerned with
officials/machinery, and they are still discriminated within the society in
the matter of enjoying their civil rights and cannot live with human
dignity.”

27. The deaths of sewerage workers due to asphyxiation while cleaning sewers and septic
tanks is a matter of grave concern. Despite the existence of laws prohibiting manual
scavenging and hazardous manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks, such incidents
continue to occur with alarming frequency.10

8
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] AIR 597 (SC)
9
AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1167
10
National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers v. Union of
India & Ors. (2019)
22
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

28. In fact their right to life was completely snatched away from them as they died in the
process, and yet no investigation was conducted to look into this serious matter denying them
the right to equality. This is further explained in the following point.

2.4] THE FAILURE OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE

SAFETY MEASURES TO THE SANITATION WORKERS VIOLATED ARTICLE 14
OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
2.4.1] It was observed by the SC during the Royappa case that – 11“Equality and arbitrariness
are sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while to the whim and caprice
of an absolute monarch”.
29. Equality is the cornerstone of the rule of law in a democratic society, whereas
arbitrariness is characteristic of absolute authority and unpredictability. The inadequate
investigation conducted in the cases of the victims and the absence of valid justifications for
such lapses, along with the failure to provide compensation to Pratyask’s family despite their
eligibility, coupled with the threats they faced, proves the arbitrary nature of the state's
actions.

30. It is humbly submitted that in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki
Nath Khosa and Ors. it was noted that intelligible differentia and rational nexus are the twin
tests of reasonable classification12. Now, In order, however, to pass the test of permissible
classification two conditions must be fulfilled namely,
(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
together from others left out of the group and,
(ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question.13

31. The exploitation of manual scavengers' illiteracy and lack of awareness highlights a
systematic failure in the treatment of this marginalized group. By subjecting them to
hazardous working conditions and denying them their rights, authorities perpetuate injustice

11
E. P Royappa v state [1974] 2 SCR 348
12
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19
13
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors, [1959]1SCR279.
23
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

and discrimination. This underscores a lack of reasonableness in their actions and a disregard
for the well-being of manual scavengers. This is further elaborated in the next point.

2.5] Historically, Manual Scavengers face discrimination in all forms hence violating
their Rights under Article 17
32. Manual scavengers have been the worst victims of the system of “purity and
pollution”14. Article 17 was a promise to lower castes that they will be free from social
oppression. Yet for the marginalized communities, little has changed 15. Multiple attempts
have been made to eradicate this derogatory practice since Independence.
33. According to a report published by the LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT16. –
‘The Central Advisory Board for Harijan Welfare, initiated in 1956 under Pandit
Gobind Ballabh Pant, proposed a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to address the
challenges faced by sweepers and scavengers. Prior to this, the Kaka Kalelkar
Commission in 1955 had highlighted the sub-human conditions of these
communities and urged for modern sanitation methods. The Malkani Committee
(1957) advocated for abolishing manual scavenging, while another committee
chaired by Prof. N.R. Malkani in 1965 examined the abolition of customary
rights. The Pandya Committee (1968-69) recommended comprehensive national
legislation to regulate working and living conditions, with similar efforts seen at
the state level in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, and Karnataka. In addition to
this various schemes like the National Scheme of Liberation and Rehabilitation
of Scavengers (NSLRS), and the National Safai Karamcharis Finance and
Development Corporation (NSKFDC) etc. has been established for the welfare of
Manual Scavengers. Recommendations were given by the National Advisory
Council in its resolution dated 23.10.2010 and "The Prohibition of Employment
as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Bill, 2012" was introduced in
2012.

14
Supra note 7
15
Ibid
16
Manual Scavengers: Welfare and Rehabilitation, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, Reference
note. No. 18 /RN/Ref./August /2013
24
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Despite all these efforts the Manual scavengers continue to live a derogatory life.
It was held in the Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.
(2014)17that –
“It is undisputed that manual scavenging is a practice that continues to be
employed in various parts of the country. The employment of manual scavengers
for the removal of human excreta is an affront to human dignity and a blot on the
national development agenda. The continuing existence of this practice also
underscores the failure of various laws, including the Employment of Manual
Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, to
eradicate this social evil.”

ARGUMENT ISSUE III

WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS
OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?

34. Article 12 of the Indiana Constitution defines what constitutes the "State" for the
purposes of the Constitution. It outlines the entities that fall under the purview of the term
"State" when interpreting fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. This definition is crucial
because it clarifies that fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are enforceable not
only against the central and state governments but also against other entities and authorities
under their control within the territory of India.
35. As the writ petition filed by the NGO, Indiana Karamchari Safai Sangatan (IKSS) in
the previous issue dealt with the failure of municipal corporation to provide adequate safety
measures, which violates the Fundamental rights of Sanitation workers as mentioned in the
Constitution of Indiana as well as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of which

17
2014 (11) SCC 224
25
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

the Republic of Indiana is a signatory. Now we will understand how the municipal
corporation is not solely responsible for the violation also other public bodies as a part of
state also fails to fulfill their obligation for the protection of Fundamental rights of Sanitation
workers and their dependents.
3.1 Violation and Non-compliance of the Domestic Law:
36. The municipal corporation, as a local authority falling under the definition of "State"
in Article 12 of the Indiana Constitution, bears responsibility for ensuring the safety and well-
being of sanitation workers. Failure to provide adequate safety measures, such as safety gear
and training, to sanitation workers constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to life and
dignity (Articles 21) as explained earlier. Additionally, the corporation's negligence in
maintaining documentation and ensuring safe working conditions further exacerbates their
liability. The failure of the Arvind and Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to enforce safety
regulations and protect sanitation workers, as well as the lack of justice for the victims of this
occupational hazard, raises significant questions about the violation of rights guaranteed
under domestic law. The violation of fundamental rights, as stipulated in Part III of the
Indiana Constitution, is evident in the tragic cases of Pratyaksh and Rahul, both sanitation
workers who lost their lives due to unsafe working conditions.
 Violation of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations: The case of
Pratyaksh and Rahul showcases potential violations of occupational safety and
health regulations. Firstly, they lacked proper safety gear required by regulations,
exposing them to hazards without protective clothing or equipment. Secondly,
their work environments lacked necessary safety measures, such as ventilation and
precautions against dangerous gases and drowning. Thirdly, there's no evidence of
sufficient training on safety protocols or hazard recognition, as mandated by
regulations. Additionally, no risk assessments were conducted to address
sanitation work hazards. Lastly, there was negligence in emergency response
procedures, leaving them vulnerable in life-threatening situations.

These violations led to the tragic deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul, indicating a failure
by municipal corporations to fulfill their obligations to safeguard sanitation workers'
health and safety, thus violating occupational safety and health regulations.

 Violation of Worker’s rights: In the case of Pratyaksh and Rahul, their rights
as workers were violated. They were exposed to hazardous conditions without
proper safety gear or measures, leading to their tragic deaths. Additionally,

26
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

these sanitation workers since ages faces this violation like low wages despite
the risks of their job, and inadequate compensation for workplace injuries.
This highlights a failure to provide a safe working environment, fair wages,
and proper compensation, undermining principles of fairness and justice in the
workplace. Overall, this case underscores the importance of upholding
workers' rights to ensure dignity and fair treatment for all employees.
 Violation of Right to life and Dignity: In the case of Pratyaksh and Rahul,
the failure to protect sanitation workers from occupational hazards violates
their fundamental rights to life and dignity. Exposed to dangerous conditions
without proper safety measures or equipment, their tragic deaths highlight a
neglect of their well-being in the workplace. Furthermore, the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, which defines "human rights" to include the right to
life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or
international covenants, also reinforces the obligation of the government to
protect the health and well-being of its citizens.
Case Law (Domestic): In India, the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan v.
Union of India & Ors (2014) addressed the failure of the government to
implement laws banning manual scavenging, which predominantly affects
sanitation workers. The Supreme Court of India highlighted the violation of
the constitutional rights to dignity and equality.

3.2 Violation and Non-compliance of the International Law:

37. The failure of the Arvind and Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to enforce safety
regulations and protect sanitation workers raises significant concerns about potential
violations of rights guaranteed under International law, including the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR). These violations encompass the right to safe working conditions,
as outlined by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the right to health recognized by
the World Health Organization (WHO), and the right to just and favorable conditions of work
affirmed by the UDHR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR).
38. Moreover, the absence of accountability and justice for victims of occupational
hazards may also contravene the right to an effective remedy under international human
rights law. It is imperative for governments to address these violations and uphold the rights
and well-being of all workers, including sanitation workers, by enforcing regulations and

27
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ensuring access to justice and compensation for harm suffered. Moreover, the lack of
enforcement of safety regulations may contravene international labour standards established
by the International Labour Organization (ILO). This failure to uphold workers' rights not
only undermines the dignity and well-being of sanitation workers but also reflects a broader
disregard for human rights obligations under international law.
 Human Rights Obligations: Failure to protect the rights and dignity of sanitation
workers can constitute a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). According to the UDHR, all individuals have the right to work in just and
favorable conditions, including fair wages and protection against unemployment.
Sanitation workers, however, often face unsafe working conditions without adequate
protective measures, fair compensation, or job security. This neglect by states to
ensure a safe and fair work environment for sanitation workers directly contradicts the
principles outlined in the UDHR.
 Right to Health: Under international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) recognizes the right to health as a fundamental human right. Specifically,
Article 25 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including food,
clothing, housing, and medical care. Sanitation workers like Pratyaksh and Rahul
have been denied this right by not being provided with adequate safety measures
while performing their duties, leading to tragic consequences.

Case Law (International): In the case of Z v. Finland (1997), the European Court of
Human Rights held that the failure of the Finnish authorities to protect workers from
exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace violated the right to life under Article 2 of
the European Convention on Human Rights.

39. In summary, the municipal corporation, as a governmental authority responsible for

the welfare of its citizens, including sanitation workers, has a duty to ensure their safety and
well-being. Failure to provide adequate safety measures, negligence in maintaining
documentation, and disregarding the dignity of sanitation workers constitute violations of
both domestic labour laws and international human rights obligations. These violations
undermine the rights of sanitation workers and their families, highlighting the urgent need for
effective enforcement mechanisms and accountability measures.
Relevant Indian case laws to support the argument:
1. Occupational Safety and Health Regulations:

28
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Held: In the case of Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen
(1960), the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of ensuring safety measures
in hazardous industries. The court held that employers have a duty to provide a safe working
environment for their employees, including sanitation workers, and failure to do so could
result in legal liability.
1. Worker Rights:
Held: In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (2000), the Delhi High
Court ruled in favor of female sanitation workers who were denied equal pay for
equal work. The court emphasized the principle of equal remuneration for equal work,
affirming the rights of sanitation workers to fair wages and equal treatment under
labor laws.
2. Right to Life and Dignity:
Held: In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), the
Supreme Court of India recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that
the failure to provide adequate safeguards for workers' health and safety violates their
right to life and dignity.
3. Prohibition of Manual Scavenging:
The case of National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied
Workers & Others v. Union of India & Others (2014) addressed the issue of manual
scavenging, predominantly affecting sanitation workers. The Supreme Court of India
directed the government to take strict measures to eradicate manual scavenging and
provide rehabilitation and alternative employment to affected workers. This case
highlights the violation of fundamental rights and the obligation of the state to protect
sanitation workers from hazardous practices.
4. Worker Safety in Hazardous Industries:
Held: In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996),
commonly known as the "Oleum Gas Leak Case," the Supreme Court of India
emphasized the importance of ensuring safety measures in hazardous industries. The
court held that industries have a duty to implement safety protocols to prevent
accidents and protect workers' lives and health. This ruling underscore the obligation
of employers and the state to safeguard the well-being of workers, including
sanitation workers.
5. Right to Health and Environmental Justice:
29
 4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Held: In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court of
India recognized the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that individuals have the right to live in a
pollution-free environment conducive to health and well-being. This case establishes
the link between environmental justice, public health, and the rights of workers,
including sanitation workers, to a safe and healthy workplace.

These additional Indian case laws further underscore the legal principles and obligations
regarding the protection of sanitation workers' rights, including safety, dignity, and health,
under domestic laws and constitutional provisions. They provide compelling evidence to
support the argument that the failure to enforce safety regulations and protect sanitation
workers violates both domestic and international legal standards.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the writ petition filed by the Forum for Environmental Right (FER) is
maintainable before the High Court of Nerduda.
2. That Section 3 of the Linking of River Act, 2010 is ultra vires to the Constitution of
Aressia
3. That the exclusion and non-implementation of the Linking of Rivers Project for the
State of Vindhya violates the fundamental rights of the people of Vindhya and
Normanda.
4. That the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 violates the environmental rights of citizens of
Aressia and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper, for this the Appellants shall duty bound pray.

30
4TH ADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

31