2ND WILDLIFE PROTECTION GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

27TH - 29TH NOVEMBER 2020

MOOT PROPOSITION

In the High Court of Greedor

Public Interest Litigation No. 115 of 2020

Nonita Chandran
(on behalf of Mohaiya Community)
Versus
Government of Primrose & Anr.

1. The Republic of Primrose - a developing nation in its 73rd year of Independence from
colonial powers- is the 2nd most populous country in the world. It is home to diverse
ecosystems such as forests, deserts, rainforests, wetlands, grasslands, etc. About 7 to
8% of all recorded species on the planet are found in the Republic of Primrose. It boasts
of four of the thirty-four globally identified biodiversity hotspots.

2. In 1972, the Primrose Wildlife Protection Act (“PWPA”) was enacted for the protection
of wild animals, birds and plants to ensure and safeguard Primrose’s ecological and
environmental security. Among other things, the PWPA conferred powers on State and
Central authorities to designate areas as National Parks, Sanctuaries, Protected Areas
for the conservation and protection of Forests and Wildlife. Prior to the PWPA,
2ND WILDLIFE PROTECTION GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Primrose had only five designated National Parks. Now, Primrose has 101 National
Parks and 553 Wildlife Sanctuaries divided amongst its States.

3. Largely an agrarian and rural country, a large part of the population of Primrose still
resides in its forests and villages. Forest dwellers, since colonial times, have been
victims of displacement from forestlands for mining, industrial projects, monocultures
and sometimes even in the name of conservation. To correct the historical injustice
meted upon traditional forest dwellers and tribes, the Primrose Parliament in 2006,
enacted The Primrose Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights), 2006 (“FRA Act”) to recognize and vest the forest
rights and occupations in forest lands in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations.

4. The FRA Act, however, was met with opposition by some conservationists who feared
that the Act will result in a land-grab in the name of other forest dwellers, encroachment
and increased deforestation. The Act fuelled the debate between two schools of
environment protection and conservation that forests should be devoid of any human
interference and that indigenous people with their traditional knowledge are protectors
and guardians of the forests.

5. On one hand there are alarming reports of deforestation, human-wildlife conflicts, and
habitat destruction. Despite the many National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and
Protected Areas, multiple species of fauna have gone extinct or are close to extinction
in Primrose. On the other hand, success stories of co-existence have been coming to
light where indigenous groups are actively protecting the forests. The number of tigers
in one Tiger Reserve where community rights have been granted have even gone up.
International Organisations and reports have also acknowledged and made the case for
the role of indigenous people in co-managing forests. They also recognize the co-
existence as a long-term solution for conservation due to their traditional knowledge
and local practices.

6. To maintain a harmonious balance between people and forests, the FRA Act included
a provision for the creation of Critical Wildlife Habitats (“CWH”), defined as “areas
of National Parks and Sanctuaries where it has been specifically and clearly

2
2ND WILDLIFE PROTECTION GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

established, case by case, on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, that such
areas are required to be kept as inviolate for the purposes of wildlife conservation as
may be determined and notified by the Central Government in the Ministry of
Environment and Forests after open process of consultation by an Expert Committee,
which includes experts from the locality appointed by that Government wherein a
representative of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs shall also be included, in determining
such areas according to the procedural requirements arising from sub-sections (1) and
(2) of section 4”. Since the inception of the FRA Act, none of the States of Primrose
had began the process of identifying Critical Wildlife Habitats.

7. In 2018, in a State called Greedor in Primrose, the environmental movement was

growing stronger with citizens, particularly the youth, demanding effective protection
of the forests, biodiversity and the environment at large. The movement reached the
streets where people in Greedor’s capital city were participating in peaceful protests
against questionable development projects in Greedor. Waking up from its slumber, the
Government of Greedor announced that it will be initiating the process to identify and
demarcate Critical Wildlife Habitats in the State to prevent fragmentation of forests and
for protection of crucial habitats and species that are endemic to Greedor. Greedor was
the first state in Primrose to begin the process as per the Guidelines for Determination
and Notification of Critical Wildlife Habitats within National Parks and Sanctuaries
(“The Guidelines”). The step was lauded by some conservation organisations. Others
called it a tokenistic step. The Government of Greedor formed expert committees for
every National Park and Sanctuary in accordance with the criteria laid out in the
Guidelines.

8. Greedor houses a large part of one of the global biodiversity hotspots present in
Primrose - the Saving Grace Hills. The Saving Grace Hills in Greedor houses 17
National Parks and Sanctuaries. In one such wildlife sanctuary, called the Moha
Wildlife Sanctuary (“MWS”), two critically endangered species are found – the Little
Mary Lark and the Oliver Antelope. In addition to that, the MWS also has various other
flora and fauna native to Greedor. The area of the MWS is 40 sq km. Through the MWS,
passes the Lazy River on which the livelihood of the traditional forest dwellers of the
villages in and surrounding MWS depend. These traditional forest dwellers fall under
the “other traditional forest dwellers” category and are known as the Mohaiya

3
2ND WILDLIFE PROTECTION GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Community. Originally, there were 21 villages present in the area. During the
settlement of rights process, 13 villages were resettled out of the Wildlife Sanctuary. 8
villages continue to live in and on the fringes of the Sanctuary. The Mohaiya
Community was granted community rights in the MWS as laid down in Section 3 (a),
(c) and (d) of the FRA Act.

9. The Expert Committee found that the population of both the endangered species had
reduced over the last decade. The Expert Committee also found through the help of
satellite imagery that the number of Shingle trees, the natural nesting place of the Little
Mary Lark, had reduced in number. The Mohaiya Community is known to collect the
Shingle tree leaves among other leaves. The reasons for the Oliver Antelope reducing
in number were not clearly known but believed to be due to activities of the Mohaiya
Community near the river. Primarily due to the decline in the number of the endangered
species and for their habitat regeneration, the Expert Committee identified a 15 sq km
stretch in the MWS including the area of the Lazy River for the proposed Moha Critical
Wildlife Habitat.

10. As per the proposed Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat, the community rights of the
Mohaiya Community would be modified, and they would have to seek for other
livelihood opportunities to leave the area inviolate. At the Open Consultation Process
held by the Expert Committee, the members of the Mohaiya Community raised their
objections to the proposed Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat. They stated that they have
been living in peaceful coexistence with the forest since generations. Their livelihoods
depend on fish from the Lazy River and collecting minor forest produce. The forest also
has cultural significance since some families from the traditional forest dwellers also
worship a 100 year-old Banyan Tree in the proposed Critical Wildlife Habitat.
Moreover, the Expert Committee has arbitrarily discarded other factors that may have
led to the decline in the number of the endangered species namely that 5 years ago, a
road was built that cut through the MWS leading to deforestation and that the MWS is
open to tourism. The Mohaiya Community urged for continuation of their rights.

11. The Expert Committee merely stressed on the harm caused by the presence of the
Mohaiya Community in its response to the objections at the Open Consultion. On the

4
 2ND WILDLIFE PROTECTION GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

basis of the Precautionary Principle, after receiving the consent of the Gram Sabha, the
committee submitted the proposal for the Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat without any
changes. After consideration by the designated Greedor and Primrose authorities, the
Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat was declared, the first in Primrose.

12. Aggrieved by the declaration of the Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat curtailing their
rights, the Mohaiya Community, through its leader Nonita Chandran, filed a petition
against the Government of Primrose and Greedor in the High Court of Greedor,
challenging the validity of the declaration of the Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat since
it affects the right to livelihood and cultural rights of the Mohaiya Community and co-
existence as an alternative was not considered.

13. The Government of Primrose and Greedor jointly responded that in the interest of the
environment, forests and on the basis of the Precautionary Principle, it is a reasonable
restriction on the rights of the Mohaiya Community. They urged against co-existence
and for the need to keep the forests inviolate for habitat protection and regeneration.

14. The High Court placed the matter for hearing and requested assistance on the following
questions:
i) Whether the declaration of the Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat modifying the rights
of the Mohaiya Community is valid and reasonable?
ii) If not, what are the recommendations for integration of the Mohaiya Community
with the Moha Critical Wildlife Habitat?
iii) What directions can the High Court issue in this case and to who?

_______
Note: The laws of Primrose and the laws of India are in pari materia. The PWPA and the FRA
Acts correspond to their Indian versions. However, the constitutional validity of the FRA Act
has not been challenged in Primrose and cannot be raised as an issue.