Moot Court – 26th June 2024

Summary Of Arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Issue 1 – Is the Suit Maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the suit filed under Article 32 of
The Constitution of India as a Writ of Mandamus, is maintainable. It is contended that the
jurisdiction of Supreme Court can always be invoked for enforcement and protection of
Fundamental Rights. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can also be invoked when there is a
failure on the part of the State to adhere and enforce Directive Principles of State Policy. It is a
request on this court to have an extraordinary review and give special importance to Rules laid
down by the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as EPA, 1896).

In the case of M.C Mehta v/s Union of India - In a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga water
pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme court held that petitioner although not
a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person
interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.

(1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530, AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1115, 1988 (1) SCC 471, (1988) 1 JT 69 (SC), 1988 (1) JT 69, (1988) 1 COMLJ
81, 1988 3 SCC 471, 1988 21 REPORTS 250, 1988 (2) COM LJ 81, 1988 SCC(CRI) 141)

in the case of Council For Environment Legal Action v/s Union of India -: Public Interest Litigation filed by
registered voluntary organisation regarding economic degradation in coastal area. Supreme Court issued
appropriate orders and directions for enforcing the laws to protect ecology.

(1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1446, 1996 AIR SCW 1069, (1996) 2 SCR 503 (SC), (1996) 2 JT 196 (SC), 1996 (2) SCR 503, 1996
(1) FAC 167, 1996 (3) SCC 212, (1996) 2 COMLJ 385, 1996 (2) JT 196, (1996) 1 FAC 167, (1996) 22 CORLA 41, (1996) 3 GUJ LR 272, (1998) 5 SUPREME 226)

Issue 2 – Importance between Environmental Protection or Development

It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Environmental Protection needs to be
given prominence over development.
Directive Principles of State Policy stated under Article 48A of the Constitution of India states that
In The Protection, improvement of environment, safeguarding of forests and wild life - The State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

Case Laws Supporting Environmental Protection:

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that environmental
protection is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing the right to live in a
healthy environment. The court emphasized the state's duty to ensure environmental sustainability and
prevent pollution.

2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The Supreme Court reiterated the significance
of environmental protection by recognizing it as a fundamental right under Article 21. The court emphasized
the need for strict enforcement of environmental laws and regulations to safeguard public health and
ecological balance.
Issue 3 – Is the violation of Article 21?

It is Humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution enshrines
the right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right, and it has been interpreted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India to encompass within its ambit the right to a clean and healthy environment. The right
to a clean environment is an integral part of the right to life, as it is essential for the enjoyment of all other
rights. The Supreme Court has held in various landmark judgments that environmental pollution and
degradation infringe upon the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. And here we can clearly ascertain
that there is violation of Article 21 by Black Fit Industry as well as the State government which has Failed to
Safeguard it. Black Fit Industry has caused Detrimental effects on the surrounding environment and its
residents. This clearly violates Article 21 which is Right to Life and Personal Liberty which also when
expanded included right to Clean Environment, clean Air, clean water etc.

S Jagannath v. Union of India [4]

• The petitioner through the present PIL has sought the enforcement of CRZ Notification, 1991 for
prohibiting the intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal
areas and constitution of a National Coastal Management Authority for safeguarding the marine life
and coastal areas.
• Due to the commercial aquaculture farming there is a considerable degradation of the mangrove
ecosystems, pollution of potable waters, and reduction in fish catch. The groundwater has become
contaminated sue to seepage of impounded water from the aquaculture farms. Further. The court
observed that most of the coastal land recently converted into shrimp farms was previously used
for food crops and traditional fishing.
Held - Aquaculture functioning outside the CRZ should obtain prior permission and clearance from
the authority within the prescribed time limit failing which they must stop their operations.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which dealt with the issue of industrial pollution in the Ganges River. The
Supreme Court, in this case, enforced various statutes including the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The court held that the right to a clean
environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 and directed the closure of industries that were polluting
the river.
Arguments Advanced

Issue 01 – Is the Suit Maintainable?

In the case of Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand, where the Municipal body of the city of Ratlam,
had failed to perform its duty of ensuring establishment of a proper drainage system on the grounds of
paucity of funds, the Supreme Court had introduced the concept of PIL for the first time and had observed
that a responsible Municipal Council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health, cannot
escape from its primary duty by pleading financial inability

(1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97, AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1622, 1979 3 SCC 327, 1979 ALL. L. J. 1068, 1979 UJ (SC) 603, 1978 SC CRI R
301, 1978 UJ (SC) 603, 1979 SC (CRI) R 301, 1978 ALLCRIC 271, 1978 SCC(CRI) 398, (1980) 6 ALL LR 601, 1980 CHANDCRIC 152, 1980 BLT
(REP) 1 (SC), 1979 CRI APP R (SC) 267, 1979 ALLCRIC 271, 1979 SCC(CRI) 398, (1979) SIM LC 3, 1978 (3) SCC 327, 1980 CRI. L. J. 1075,
(1979) 3 S C C 645, 1979 ALL. L. J. 981, 1979 ALL CRI R 429, 1979 SCC (CRI) 862, (1979) 2 S C J 433, 1978 CRI APP R (S C) 267)

NAME OF THE CASE – M.C.MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS (TAJ TRAPEZIUM CASE)

COURT – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT – 30-12-1996

CITATION – AIR 1997 2 SCC 353

Mr. M.C. Mehta, an environmentalist, and public interest attorney, who visited The Taj Mahal in 1984 and
noticed that the white marble of the Taj Mahal turning yellow. To bring this matter into the lime light, he filed
a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court drawing the attention of the Court towards the
degradation of the Taj Mahal due to the atmospheric pollution and requested issue appropriate directions to
the authorities concerned to take immediate steps to stop air pollution in the Taj Trapezium Zone and to
save the Taj Mahal. This Landmark Judgment espoused the cause of Great Awakening for protection of the
national heritages from deterioration and damage due to the environmental pollution. The Apex Court took
a remarkable initiative by giving due consideration to various principle and concepts of environmental law.

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997):

In this case, the Supreme Court allowed a PIL against the pollution caused by the Mathura oil refinery, emphasizing
that environmental protection is a constitutional imperative. The court held that the right to live in a pollution-free
environment is a fundamental right, and thus, allowed the maintainability of the PIL. This case further strengthened the
role of PILs in addressing environmental issues and underscored the judiciary's commitment to protecting the
environment.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)iii

The "Dehradun Valley Litigation" case was related to the functioning of lime-stone quarries in India's
Mussoorie Hill range in which writ was filed. The argument was that the quarries endanger the ecosystem
and have an impact on the perennial water springs. Additionally, it had a negative impact on the vegetation
and caused landslides, which killed locals and ruined homes, herds of livestock, and agricultural grounds.

Under the Environmental Protection Act, the Valley was identified as an environmentally sensitive area.
Under the direction of the Minister for Environment and Forests, a Doon Valley Board was established for
preserving and rehabilitating the Valley's deteriorated sections. A working group was also established to
examine the local limestone quarries. It led to the upholding of the idea of sustainable development that
calls for a balance between economic growth and ecological preservation so that national socioeconomic
requirements are met while harmful environmental effects are minimized, leaving enough resources for the
future generation.
Issue 2 – Environmental protection or development?
Importance of Environmental Protection in India

Environmental protection is of paramount importance in any society as it directly impacts the health, well-
being, and livelihood of the people. In the case the issue of environmental protection has come to the
forefront due to the establishment of a chemical pesticide manufacturing unit known as "Black Fit". The
release of chemical effluents into the underground land has led to the discolouration of territorial water and
deterioration of the health of residents. This has raised significant concerns about the failure of the state
government to protect the environment and the public interest.

Constitutional Provisions and Directive Principles of State Policy:

The Constitution of India enshrines several provisions that emphasize the importance of environmental
protection. Article 48A of the Constitution states that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." This provision reflects the duty and
responsibility of the state government to take proactive measures for environmental conservation.
Additionally, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

Furthermore, the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution provide guidelines for
the state to frame policies for securing the health and strength of workers, men, women, and children, and
to protect citizens from being abused and exploited. These principles emphasize the state's obligation to
ensure a healthy environment for its citizens and to prevent any form of exploitation or harm.

Failure of State Government and Industry:

In this, it is evident that the state government has failed in its duty to protect the environment and the public
interest. Despite the dissatisfaction expressed by residents regarding the establishment of the chemical
pesticide manufacturing unit, the government allowed its operation without addressing the concerns raised.
This failure reflects a lack of adherence to the constitutional provisions and directive principles related to
environmental protection.

Additionally, the industry in question has also failed to adhere to environmental protection laws and
regulations. The release of chemical effluents into the underground land without proper treatment not only
violates environmental protection norms but also poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of the
residents. This demonstrates a clear disregard for environmental safety and public welfare by the industry.

Environmental Protection Laws and Statutes:

The Environmental Protection Act, 1986 is a crucial legislation that provides for the protection and
improvement of the environment. This act empowers the central government to take measures for
environmental protection and pollution control. It lays down provisions for the handling, storage, and disposal
of hazardous substances, as well as penalties for non-compliance with environmental norms.

In addition to the Environmental Protection Act, there are other statutes that emphasize environmental
protection such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, and Forest Conservation Act, 1980. These laws aim to regulate activities that may have
adverse effects on the environment and natural resources. The establishment of the "Black Fit"
manufacturing unit has clearly violated these laws by causing pollution and endangering the environment.

Prominence of Environmental Protection over Development:

In this case, the need to prioritize environmental protection over industrial development. While industrial
growth is essential for economic progress, it should not come at the cost of environmental degradation and
public health hazards. Sustainable development requires a balance between economic advancement and
environmental conservation. Neglecting environmental protection in favor of rapid industrialization can have
long-term detrimental effects on ecosystems, natural resources, and human well-being.

3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996): In this case, the Supreme Court
emphasized that environmental protection is a collective responsibility and that all stakeholders, including
industries and government authorities, must work towards preserving the environment for future
generations.
Issue 3 – Does it Violate Article 21?

The establishment and operation of the "Black Fit" chemical pesticide manufacturing unit had detrimental
effects on the environment and the health of the residents. The release of chemical effluents into the
underground land has resulted in the contamination of territorial water, which is a vital natural resource for
the residents. The discolouration of the water to red colour and the resulting deterioration of health among
the residents are clear violations of their right to a clean and healthy environment, which is an essential
component of their right to life under Article 21.

In the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to
a clean environment is a fundamental right under Article 21, and that it is the duty of the State to ensure that
this right is protected and preserved. The Court further emphasized that environmental protection is not only
a governmental responsibility, but also a collective duty of all citizens. The establishment and operation of
the "Black Fit" chemical pesticide manufacturing unit in Karunadu, which has led to environmental pollution
and adverse health effects, clearly violates this fundamental right as recognized by the Supreme Court.
The court enforced the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, and held that the right to clean environment is an integral part of Article 21. The court
directed the closure of tanneries that were found to be polluting the environment.

Furthermore, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which is a comprehensive legislation aimed at
protecting and improving the quality of the environment, imposes strict liability on any person or entity
carrying out any hazardous activity which causes environmental pollution or damage. The Act provides for
the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution, and it places an obligation on every citizen
to protect and improve the environment. The operation of the "Black Fit" chemical pesticide manufacturing
unit in Karunadu, resulting in environmental pollution and harm to public health, is in clear contravention of
the provisions of this Act.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of
vehicular pollution in Delhi. The court enforced the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and
held that the right to clean air is a part of the right to life under Article 21. The court directed the
implementation of various measures to control vehicular pollution in Delhi.

Furthermore, in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of pollution
caused by hazardous industries in Bihar. The court enforced the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and held that the right to life under Article 21 includes
the right to a clean environment. The court directed the closure of hazardous industries that were found to
be polluting the environment.

Lastly, in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court addressed
the issue of limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills. The court enforced various environmental protection
laws and held that the right to a clean environment is a fundamental right under Article 21. The court directed
the closure of limestone quarries that were causing environmental degradation.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, stating that "No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." However,
due to urbanisation, development, and heavy industries polluting rivers and air, this fundamental right of the
residents is being violated. This article aims to provide an argument supporting this violation with relevant
precedents, case laws, rules, statutes, and provisions.

The right to a clean and healthy environment is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the right to a clean environment
is a fundamental right and is essential for the enjoyment of life and all other rights. In the case of Subhash
Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to
a clean environment. The court emphasized that environmental protection is necessary for the enjoyment
of life and is the responsibility of the state.

Furthermore, the principle of sustainable development has been recognized as a part of the right to life under
Article 21. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that sustainable
development is a part of the right to life and directed industries to adhere to strict environmental standards.
The court emphasized the need for a balance between development and environmental protection to ensure
the right to life of the citizens.
In addition to judicial precedents, various statutes and provisions have been enacted to protect the
environment and prevent pollution. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 are legislative measures aimed at preventing and controlling
water and air pollution. These statutes provide for the establishment of pollution control boards and prescribe
standards for emissions and effluents. Violation of these standards can lead to penalties and sanctions.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is another important legislation that empowers the central
government to take measures to protect and improve the environment. The act provides for the regulation
of activities that have the potential to cause environmental pollution and lays down procedures for handling
hazardous substances.

Despite the existence of these laws and judicial pronouncements, urbanisation, development, and heavy
industries continue to pollute rivers and air, leading to a violation of Article 21. The rapid pace of urbanisation
has resulted in encroachments on water bodies, leading to their pollution and degradation. Industrial
activities, especially in heavily industrialized areas, have led to the release of toxic effluents and emissions,
causing severe air and water pollution.

Considering these violations, it is imperative for the state to take proactive measures to address
environmental degradation and ensure the protection of residents' rights under Article 21. The state has a
duty to enforce existing laws and regulations effectively, monitor compliance with environmental standards,
and take stringent action against violators. Additionally, public awareness and participation in environmental
conservation efforts should be encouraged to foster a sense of collective responsibility towards protecting
the environment.
Prayer

May it please Your Lordships,

The petitioner, Smt. Anamika Sehgal, respectfully submits the following prayer on behalf of the residents of
Karunadu:

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to issue an immediate stay order on the operations of the
chemical pesticide manufacturing Unit known as "Black Fit" in Karunadu, pending the final disposal of this
petition.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to constitute a high-level committee comprising of
environmental experts, public health officials, and representatives of the residents to investigate the
environmental and health hazards caused by the said manufacturing Unit.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to direct the said manufacturing Unit to cease all activities
that are causing pollution and harm to the environment and public health, and to take immediate remedial
measures to mitigate the damage caused.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to order the State of Karunadu to provide necessary
assistance and support to the affected residents, including access to clean and safe drinking water, medical
facilities, and compensation for the damages suffered.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to impose stringent penalties and sanctions on the said
manufacturing Unit for its non-compliance with environmental regulations and for causing harm to the
environment and public health.

6. The State Government and the Chief Minister be held responsible for: -
For Sanctioning and permitting the industry to be established despite being violative and ultra vires to
provisions of the Constitution of India as well as the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
For the Chief Minister not heeding to, ignoring issues and possible hazards that might be caused if the
industry is established raised by the petitioner on behalf of the resident’s way before the establishment of
the said industry.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to uphold the fundamental right of the residents to a clean
and healthy environment, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Bharathakhanda), and to
ensure that their rights are protected and upheld.
8. For State Government to compensate the victims of industrial pollution by providing medical facilities free
of cost and pay a suitable compensation.

9. If in case the industry has to function in the current place, appropriate housing facilities provided to
residents and cost for relocation paid.

10. Compensate all Legal expenses so far.

The petitioner humbly prays for the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in considering the urgent nature of the
matter and in granting the reliefs sought in the interest of justice and public welfare.