Ahaan Bhatnagar, Aryan Rajveer, and Rishabh Adlakha

MOOT COURT AND TRIAL ADVOCACY

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
MODERN SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES & ORS.
(PETITIONERS)
v.
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………3
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………….6
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………..7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………..8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….11
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….17

2
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

M.C. Mehta M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC

1037
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union
of India & Ors 1996 (5) SCC 647
Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of
Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC 413.
Constitution The Constitution of India, 1950
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs
The State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549.
Bhim Singh Jain Bhim Singh Jain vs Union Of India
19(1981)DLT446
K.T. Plantation K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of
Karnataka 2011 (9) SCC 146

NGT Act National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

M.C. Mehta (2002) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 2002 (2) SCR
963.
Vardhaman Kaushik Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India O.A.
No. 21 of 2014, 95 of 2015 and 303 of 2015

Karnataka Lorry Malikara Okkuta Karnataka Lorry Malikara Okkuta v. The

Environment Act
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
186th Law Commission Report
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
State of Karnataka 2004 (6) KAR LJ1
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
v. Ankita Sinha Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-
12123 of 2018.
186th Report of Law Commission of India
on the Proposal to Constitute Environmental
Courts in September 2003.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

3
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 v. Ankita Sinha Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-
12123 of 2018.
Mantri Techzone Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward
Foundation (2019) 18 SCC 494
All Dimasa Students Union State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students
Union 2019 (8) SCC 177
DG NHAI DG NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch; AIR
2020 SC 3471.

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S.
R. Tendolkar 1958 AIR 538.
Anwar Ali Sarkar The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union
Of India & Ors 1996 (5) SCC 647
M.C. Mehta (2016) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2016) 15 SCC 133.
Chameli Singh Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1996) 2 SCC 549.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
The Background:
New Delhi, the capital of India, has been plagued with environmental concerns for its
residents, flora, and fauna. These concerns are driven by a combination of factors including,
inter alia, overutilization of scarce resources due to overpopulation; pervasive road dust and
industrial emissions as a source of air pollution; and air pollution caused by unclean engines
in diesel vehicles including two-wheelers and three-wheelers using two-stroke engines. As a
result, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) ranked New Delhi as the most polluted city
globally with the highest volume of particulate matter pollution, in May 2014.

Measures taken by the Delhi Green Tribunal and the Delhi Government:
The Delhi Green Tribunal (“DGT”) and the Delhi Government (“the Government”) issued
several measures to curb air pollution in the city. First, the DGT banned the use of diesel-
powered buses and trucks older than 5 years in the National Capital Region (“NCR”) on
April 08, 2015. Second, the Government issued an odd-even scheme (“scheme”) for vehicles
under which odd and even registered vehicles will only be allowed to be driven on alternate
days, starting January 01, 2016. Third, the Government issued an order for school buses to be
used as commercial vehicles after school hours, with the aim of promoting public
transportation.

The Dispute:
The Modern School of Environmental Studies (“MSES”) has been affected by the measures
taken by the DGT and the Government as it utilizes diesel-powered buses purchased
approximately 19 years ago in 2005 for the transportation of its students. Consequently,
MSES along with other schools and the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private
Schools (“the Committee”) has approached the Supreme Court of India, vide a writ petition,
challenging the validity of the odd-even scheme and the DGT’s ban on diesel-powered buses
and trucks older than 5 years in the NCR under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules,
1973 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, respectively. Further, a public interest litigation was
filed by a group of individuals before the Supreme Court of India challenging the
constitutional validity of the Odd-Even scheme under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and contending that the scheme adversely affects certain groups such as
commuters to work, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups which rely on
personal transportation. Further, it is also contended that the scheme has been issued without

5
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
due process of public consultation and discussion. The Supreme Court of India has clubbed
the two petitions.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION NO. _____ OF 2023 SUBMITS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE
32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE BOUND BY
ANY DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

6
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial
uses is a violation of basic principles and provisions of DSEAR (Delhi School Education
Act and Rules) 1973?

2. Whether the Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on use of diesel-powered buses and trucks and
buses older than 5 years is arbitrary since it is not a required rule under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988?

3. Whether the odd-even scheme is violative of the Constitution of India and the
fundamental rights enshrined therein?

7
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] The Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial uses is
not in violation of basic principles and provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and
Rules 1973.
The Respondent submits that the Government has the power to order for requisition of school
buses under the Constitution. Article 21 read with Article 47 imposes a duty on the state to
uphold public health. In the absence of provisions in the DSEAR 1973, the State Government
can exercise its power under Article 162 to extend its powers to matters that the State
Government has the power to legislate on under List II and III of Schedule 7. Under List II
and III, the State legislature can make laws on matters relating to public order, public health
and sanitization, communication including roads, traffic and vehicles, education, and
mechanically propelled vehicles. Thus, the Delhi Government has the power to order for the
requisition of school buses under the Constitution. Furthermore, the order does not violate
fundamental rights as it is a reasonable restriction, thus, petitioner cannot approach the
Supreme Court under Article 32. Assuming the petitioner argues that the right to property
under Article 300A is violated, it must approach the High Court as the right to property is a
constitutional right.

[2] The Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on diesel-powered buses and trucks older than five
years is not arbitrary.
The Respondent submits that the DGT’s ban on diesel-powered buses and trucks older than
five years is not arbitrary. First, the environmental regulations i.e. the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 override
common law regulations including the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Second, the DGT has non-
adjudicatory functions including that of prevention, remedy, and amelioration. Third, the
DGT has extensive and exclusive jurisdiction on matters involving questions related to the
environment.

8
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
[3] The odd-even scheme does not violate the Constitution of India and the
fundamental rights enshrined therein.
The Respondent submit that the odd-even scheme does not violate the Constitution of India.
First, Article 14 is not violated as the scheme is presumed to be constitutionally valid and
burden to prove violation is on the petitioner. Further, the classification does not need to have
perfect equality and shall consider the history and prevailing circumstances. The odd-even
scheme has a rationale nexus with the object of reducing vehicular pollution. Second, Article
19 is not violated as the scheme is a reasonable restriction in furtherance of public interest. It
is reasonable as Delhi has a suitable public transportation system to substitute personal
vehicles including catering to the needs of vulnerable groups. Third, the odd-even scheme
does not violate Article 21 as the right to livelihood is not absolute and is subject to
reasonable restrictions in furtherance of public welfare. Further, it is the duty of the State
under Article 21 to provide a healthy and clean environment.

9
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] The Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial uses is
not in violation of basic principles and provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and
Rules 1973.
The Respondent submits that first the Government has the power to order for requisition of
school buses under the Constitution [1.1] and second, the petition is not maintainable as the
Supreme Court cannot enforce the right to property under the Constitution [1.2].

[1.1] The Government has the power to order for requisition of school buses under the
Constitution.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution envisages the right to a healthy and sanitized
environment.1 Pursuant to this right, there is also a duty upon the state to provide a healthy
and sanitized environment to its citizens. Furthermore, Article 47 of the Constitution imposes
a duty on the State to improve public health. 2 In the absence of relevant provisions under the
Delhi School Education Act, 1973, or any other legislation, the Executive gains this power
under Article 162 of the Constitution which extends its power to laws on which the State
government has legislative competence i.e. under List II and III of Schedule 7. 3 In Rai Sahib
Ram, the Supreme Court held that a bare perusal of Article 162 suggests that the Executive’s
powers are not only limited to previously passed legislation but also laws which the state
legislature is competent to legislate upon.4

In casu, the State Legislature has the legislative competence under List II over public order
(Entry 1), public health and sanitation (Entry 6), Communications including roads, traffic,
and vehicles (Entry 13). It also has legislative competence under List III over Education
(Entry 35) and mechanically propelled vehicles. A combined reading of the aforementioned
1
M.C. Mehta; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum; Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti.
2
Article 47, Constitution of India, 1950.
3
Article 162, Constitution of India, 1950.
4
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur.
10
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
subjects that the State Legislature has competence over and Article 162 of the Constitution,
indicates that the Delhi Government has the power to order for the requisition of school buses
under the Constitution.

[1.2] The Petition is not maintainable as the Supreme Court cannot enforce the right to
property under Constitution.
Assuming that the Petitioner argue that this order has violated Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution, the Respondent argues that there is no unreasonable restriction of fundamental
rights. The order for requisition of school buses is a reasonable restriction as it does not affect
the regular operation of schools and the buses will only be used after school hours. Further,
such reasonable restriction is in furtherance of public welfare to promote public
transportation and reduce pollution. Therefore, as no prima facie violation of a fundamental
right, the Petitioner cannot approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, assuming that the Petitioner argues that it is deprived of its right to property
under Article 300A of the Constitution,5 the Respondent submits that the same has been done
in conformity with law as mentioned in Issue [1.1], and in accordance with Article 300A.
Furthermore, in Bhim Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to
property under Article 300A is a constitutional right.6 Therefore, the Petitioner must approach
the Court with appropriate jurisdiction i.e. the High Court.7

Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable as the Supreme Court cannot enforce the
right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

[2] The Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on diesel-powered buses and trucks older than five
years is not arbitrary.
The Respondents submit that first, environmental regulations have an overriding effect on the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [2.1]. Second, the Delhi Green Tribunal has non-adjudicatory
functions [2.2]. Third, the NGT has extensive and exclusive jurisdiction on environment
related matters [2.3].

5
Article 300A, Constitution of India, 1950.
6
Bhim Singh Jain.
7
K.T. Plantation.
11
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
S.14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT Act’) provides 3 essential elements to
establish the NGT’s jurisdiction- a civil case; involving a substantial question relating to the
environment; and arising out of the implementation of enactments under Schedule I.8

[2.1]Environmental regulations have an overriding effect on the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued the order of phasing out of diesel
buses in Delhi and utilizing CNG public vehicles as an alternative, which is a subject falling
under the MV Act.9 Thus, suggesting the overriding effect of environmental regulations over
common law statutes including the MV Act.10 This was further re-affirmed by the Karnataka
High Court which held that the Environment Act overrides the MV Act as it is in furtherance
of the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11 On various other
occasions, Courts have held that the MV Act is subject to the provisions of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 (‘EP Act’) and other environment-related enactments. Furthermore,
S.5 of the EP Act starts with the phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in any other
laws” suggesting the overriding effect over other laws.12

In casu, the DGT’s ban the use of diesel-powered buses and trucks older than five years is
taken for the implementation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and
S.5 of the EP Act, both of which are spelled out in Schedule I of the NGT Act. Therefore, as
the environmental regulations will have an overriding effect on the MV Act, the ban on the
use of diesel-powered buses and trucks older than five years is not arbitrary despite there
being no provisions under the MV Act.

[2.2] The Delhi Green Tribunal has non-adjudicatory functions.

In Ankita Sinha, the Supreme Court affirmed the non-adjudicatory functions of the NGT
stating that the aim of the Tribunal is not merely to protect the environment but also prevent
damage to the environment.13 The NGT has wide functions which is not limited to
adjudication but also prevention, remedy, and amelioration. 14 Further, a ‘dispute’ between

8
Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.; Schedule I, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
9
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002).
10
Ibid.; Vardhaman Kaushik.
11
Karnataka Lorry Malikara Okkuta.
12
Section 5, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
13
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
14
Ibid.
12
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
two or more parties is not essential, rather what is required is the formulation of decisions
related to the environment.15 Such non-adjudicatory functions were also flagged in the 186th
Law Commission Report on the Proposal to Constitute Environmental Courts.16

In casu, the absence of a dispute between two or more parties does not bar the DGT from
performing its non-adjuratory functions of prevention of environmental harm. The DGT is
within its jurisdiction to prohibit diesel-powered trucks and buses older than five years in
order to prevent the irreparable damage that may be caused from the pollution from such
vehicles.

[2.3] The NGT has extensive and exclusive jurisdiction on environment related matters.
It is first important to examine the statutory scheme of the NGT Act to highlight the
legislative intent. The Preamble flags the right to life under Article 21 encapsulates the right
to a healthy environment.17 Further, the Statement of objects and reasons highlights the role
of the NGT in exercising protective, preventative, and remedial function. 18 Moreover, S.15 of
the NGT Act empowers the Tribunal to provide relief ‘as the Tribunal may think fit’.19
Finally, Rule 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011, states
that the NGT may issue directions as it may deem necessary to secure the ends of justice. 20

The extensive discretionary authority given to the NGT to achieve environmental justice in
terms of taking suo moto action and providing necessary relief was identified by the Supreme
Court in Ankita Sinha.21 Moreover, various courts have recognized the special jurisdiction of
the NGT in exercising extensive and extraordinary powers- both reflexive and preventive- in
safeguarding the right to a healthy environment, provided it does not exceed the domain of an
environment-related question.22 Lastly, the Supreme Court has also recognized the NGT’s
ability to take suo moto cognizance of cases as S.14 of the NGT Act does not mandate an
application before the Court to trigger its jurisdiction in civil cases involving questions
relating to the environment.

15
Ibid.
16
186th Law Commission Report
17
Preamble, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
18
Ibid.
19
Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.; Schedule I, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
20
Rule 24, National Green Tribunal (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011.
21
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
22
Mantri Techzone; All Dimasa Students Union; DG NHAI.
13
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
In casu, the DGT does not require an application before it to take cognizance of the case and
exercise its jurisdiction. The DGT was within its jurisdiction to suo moto issue the ban on
diesel-powered buses and trucks older than 5 years as it deemed it fit to curb the
overwhelming pollution in Delhi, after it was highlighted by the ‘Death by Breath’ series.

[3] The odd-even scheme does not violate the Constitution of India and the
fundamental rights enshrined therein.
The Respondents submit first the odd-even scheme does not violate Article 14 of the
Constitution [3.1]. Second, the odd-even scheme does not violate Article 19 of the
Constitution [3.2]. Third, the odd-even scheme does not violate Article 21 of the
Constitution.

[3.1] The odd-even scheme does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection
of the to all individuals.23 First, the Supreme Court has established that there is always a
presumption that a legislation is constitutional valid and further, the burden to prove violation
of fundamental rights is on the Petitioner. Further, while considering presumption the Court
must take into various other considerations such as the history and prevailing circumstances
when the legislation was passed.24 In Anwar Ali, the Supreme Court held that the
classification need not be mathematical nicety, scientific precision, and perfect equality. 25

In casu, the odd-even scheme is presumed to be constitutionally valid and the burden to prove
otherwise is on the Petitioner. In any case, the classification based on registration number is
reasonable as it ensures that such rule is standardized and uniformly applied to all vehicles,
ensuring the criteria for classification is applied in a standard manner throughout all vehicles.
Further, it has a reasonable nexus with the object the Government is aiming to achieve i.e., to
reduce pollution and promote public transportation, particularly at a time when Delhi has
been ranked as the world’s most polluted city by the WHO. With respect the effectiveness of
such classification, the effectiveness of the classification need not be scientific precise and
have perfect equality.

23
Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950.
24
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia.
25
Anwar Ali Sarkar..
14
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
[3.2] The odd-even scheme does not violate Article 19 of the Constitution
Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantee individuals with the
freedom of movement and freedom of profession, occupation, and trade respectively. 26
However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in furtherance of public interest
under Article 19(5) and Article 19(6) respectively. 27 In Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum, the
Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of sustainable development in furtherance of
preserving a healthy environment for the succeeding generations.28

In casu, it is established that vehicular pollution contributes approximately 28% of Delhi total
pollution, which is a substantial amount, as highlighted by the Court in M.C. Mehta v.
U.O.I.29 Before implementing the odd-even scheme, the Delhi Government through the years
has ensured a robust metro network with end-to-end connectivity throughout the city and
public buses. These public transportation systems also cater to vulnerable groups by having
specific seats for the elderly and the disabled, free rides and separate sections for woman, etc.
Furthermore, to improve the public bus transportation system, the Delhi Government has also
ordered the use of school buses after school hours. Thus, the odd-even scheme does not
violate Article 19 of the Constitution.

[3.3] The odd-even scheme does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. 30
However, in Chameli Singh, the Court established that the right to livelihood is not absolute
and that reasonable restrictions can be made in furtherance of public interest. 31 Furthermore,
an examination of jurisprudence of the Supreme Court suggests that the right to life and
personal liberty incapsulates the right to a clean and sanitized environment, that leads to
healthy mind and body.32

In casu, the Government, by issuing the odd-even scheme, is imposing a reasonable

restriction by limiting the movement of vehicles and the number of vehicles being used in a
day. This is in furtherance of performing its constitutional duty to provide individuals with a

26
Article 19(1)(d), Constitution of India, 1950.; Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India, 1950.
27
Article 19(5), Constitution of India, 1950.; Article 19(6), Constitution of India, 1950.
28
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum.
29
M.C. Mehta (2016).
30
Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950.
31
Chameli Singh .
32
M.C. Mehta; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum; Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti.
15
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
clean and healthy environment by limiting the vehicular pollution, which is a major
contributor of the aggregate pollution in Delhi. Therefore, through the odd-even scheme, the
Government aims to limit air pollution and safeguard the citizens’ right to a clean and healthy
environment.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities
cited, the Petitioners humbly requests the Hon’ble Supreme Court to declare:

1. The Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial use is
not violation of the basic principles and provisions of the DSEAR (Delhi School
Education Act and Rules).
2. The Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on use of diesel-powered buses and trucks older than
5 years is not arbitrary.
3. The odd-even scheme is not violative of the Constitution of India and the fundamental
rights enshrined therein.

Furthermore, the petitioner respectfully requests any other relief deemed fit by this
honourable court in the pursuit of justice, fairness, and moral integrity. All of the above is
presented with utmost humility and respect.

16
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT