Kartavya, Celebration of 70 Constitution Day Moot Competition

KARTAVYA, CELEBRATION OF 70th CONSTITUTION DAY MOOT COMPETITION
Team Code: C044
KARTAVYA CELEBRATION OF 70th CONSTITUTION DAY
MOOT COMPETITION 2020
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF REPUBLIC OF PURABDESH
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _________ OF 2019
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PURABDESH
KUDRETI KHETI ABHIYAN .……..…………………………………………..… PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF PURABDESH ………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PURABDESH
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

i
COUNSELMEMORANDUM
APPEARING ON BEHALF
ON BEHALF OFOF THE PETITIONER
PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. I
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. II
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... V
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... VI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. VII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................... VIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1
1. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND

AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE FARMERS
TO EQUALITY. .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. THE NOTIFICATION IS IN VIOLATION OF ART. 14. ..................................... 1
1.1.1. There is no reasonable classification. ............................................................... 1
1.1.2. The notification is in violation of natural justice. ............................................ 3
1.2. THE PUNITIVE ACTIONS ON THE FARMERS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE.

4
2. THAT THE NOTIFICATION AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD OF FARMERS. ...................................................... 6
2.1. THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE FARMERS. ....... 6
2.1.1. The right to live with human dignity has been curtailed by the notification. .. 6
2.1.2. Farmers have been deprived of their right to choices and liberty. ................... 7
2.1.3. Deprivation of the right to life violates various international instruments. ..... 7
2.2. THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE

FARMERS. ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1. Revocation of MSP violates the right to livelihood of the farmers. ................. 8
2.2.2. The notification is not in accordance with the directive principles.................. 9
ii
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
3. THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED ITS DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT. .......................................................................... 10
3.1. THE STATE HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE

ENVIRONMENT. ........................................................................................................... 11
3.1.1. The need for judicial intervention may not have arisen. ................................ 11
3.1.2. The state has violated Art. 48A of the Constitution. ...................................... 12
3.1.3. The state has failed in its duty and violated the doctrine of public trust. ....... 12
3.2. THE STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATIONS. .............................................................................................................. 13
3.3. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN

VIOLATED. .................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1. There is a violation of the precautionary principle. ....................................... 14
3.3.2. There is a violation of the principle of inter-generational equity. .................. 15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................................... IX
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Paragraph
¶¶ Paragraphs
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Bom Bombay
Del Delhi
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Id. Idem
MSP Minimum Support Price
KPP Krishi Pradhan Pradesh
NCR National Capital Region
P. Page No.
PIL Public Interest Litigation
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change
UOI Union of India
UOP Union of Purabdesh
v. Versus
I
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
1. INDIA CONST. .......................................................................................................... passim
CASES
1. A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.C. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62. ............ 12, 14
2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 ........................................... 3
3. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759. ..................... 13
4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1947) 2 All ER 680
(CA)................................................................................................................................. 4
5. Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P., (1983) 2 SCC 442. ........................................................... 4
6. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society v. S. Banerjee, AIR 1952 Cal. 891 ................................... 14
7. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549. ....................................................... 6
8. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR. 1990 SC 1480.............................................. 11
9. Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712. ....................................................... 1
10. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 SCR (2) 348. ............................................. 3
11. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. ................................... 6
12. G. SundarRajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620. ................................................ 15
13. Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549. ............................. 15
14. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union Of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1. ....................... 7, 10
15. Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 2 SCC 772.
......................................................................................................................................... 2
16. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. ................................ 8, 13
17. Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 605. ..................................................... 8
18. L.I.C. Of India v. Consumer Education and Research, AIR 1995 SC 1811. ............ 9, 10
19. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 ............................................................ 12
20. M.C. Mehta v. State of Orissa, AIR. 1992 Ori. 225...................................................... 12
21. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 411........................................................ 14
22. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, IA NOS.158128 AND 158129 OF 2019 IN WRIT
PETITION (C) NO.13029 OF 1985................................................................................ 2
23. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. .................................................. 3
24. Munn v. Illinois, 24 L ED 77: 94 US 113 (1877). .......................................................... 6
II
25. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362. ................................................... 11, 14
26. Nagrik Chetna Manch v. The State Government of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 BOM 2. . 12
27. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438. ................... 13
28. Nirbhai Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 15 SCC 494.................................................. 14
29. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 180. ....................................... 9
30. Ram Dial v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 1518. .......................................................... 1
31. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 251, 256. ........................... 6
32. S.K. Chakraborty v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 575. ................................................ 1
33. Samantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191. ........................................... 14
34. Shahfjad Khan Maebub Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 570. ............... 4
35. Shailesh R. Shah v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 8 SCC 462. ............................................. 12
36. Sharma Transport v. Government of AP, (2002) 2 SCC 188 ......................................... 3
37. Shashikant Laxman Kale. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 2114. ................................. 1
38. State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149. ................ 15
39. State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. .................................................... 1
40. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598. ............................................ 11, 12
41. T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606. ................... 14
42. Union of India v. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463......................................................... 5
43. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398...................................................... 4
44. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645. ...................................................... 12
45. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715. ..................... 14
46. Vijay Bhagubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 GLR 701....................................... 4
47. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 577. ................................. 12
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
1. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development ......................................... 12, 13, 14

2. Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
....................................................................................................................................... 14
3. UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Right to Development .......................... 7, 13
4. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
......................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties .................................................................. 12
III
BOOKS
1. 3 Dr. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 4171 (8th ed., 2008).
....................................................................................................................................... 11
2. P.K. Tripathy, Spotlights on Constitutional Interpretation 166 (1972)........................... 6
ARTICLES
1. Charlotte Epstein, ‘Common but differentiated responsibilities’, Britannica ................. 5

2. P. Mukherjee, ‘Fireworks makes Diwali a dangerous festiva.’, The Down to Earth...... 3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1. NITI Aayog Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office Government of India,

Evaluation Study on Efficacy of Minimum Support Prices (MSP) on Farmers (2016) . 8
IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has the honour to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Purabdesh under the
jurisdiction of Article 32 which reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.”
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE INSTANT CASE.
V
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Republic of Purabdesh is the 5th largest and 2nd largest country in the world, in terms of
landmass and population respectively. More than 60% of the working population of the country
are engaged in agricultural sector with reliance on traditional method. Purabdesh has 12 states
and 3 union territories with the Union Territory of Dilprastha as the capital city.
2. Post-independence the city of Dilprastha has seen mass population influx and in order to
sustain ever increasing population, the city has seen massive infrastructural development. Due
to LPG policy of the Govt. the city saw a huge rise in small/large scale industries and
manufacturing units mushrooming around the city following which Dilprastha became the
most populated city of the country and saw a three-fold rise in population and a seven-fold rise
in number of vehicles between 1990 and 2019. The four surrounding states of Dilprastha are
known as KPP, with majority of the population engaged in agriculture. The KPP contribute to
40-45% of total food grain production of the country and 60-70% of total agricultural land of
the KPP is employed towards rice-wheat crop rotation.
3. Over a period of time Dilprastha has become a vast conglomeration of industrial,

unauthorised colonies, unplanned housing, etc. In the last two decades, the city saw a huge rise
in pollution level. Due to failure of the Govt. to prevent and control the pollution in the city,
the Hon’ble SC of Purabdesh in several matters of PIL passed orders and judgements to
improve the conditions. In 2019, following the light festival, the AQI reached 999 and the city
reported a huge increase in respiratory problems and about 50 deaths for the same reason.
4. The Central Govt. declared a public health emergency, and took certain measures such as
odd-even scheme for vehicles and suspension of industrial operations in the NCR area. The
Govt. also issued a notification on November 10, 2019, putting an absolute and immediate ban
on stubble burning and prescribing a hefty fine of Rupees 1,00,000 per incidence of stubble
burning, followed by withdrawal of all benefits under MSP scheme for even a single instance
of stubble burning.
5. Aggrieved by the effects of harsh and arbitrary nature of the Govt. notification, KPP saw an
outburst among the farmers, 7 farmers reportedly committing suicide as mark of protest. Owing
to the public interest and question of law involved an NGO named KK Abhiyan working for
the rights of farmer, filed a PIL petition before the Hon’ble SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution
requesting the court to issue writ/orders/direction quashing the notification. Hence the Petition.
VI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND

AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE FARMERS TO
EQUALITY.
ISSUE 2
THAT THE NOTIFICATION AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

OF LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD OF FARMERS.
ISSUE 3
THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED ITS DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND
IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT.
VII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
-I-
It is most humbly submitted that the notification amounts to violation of the fundamental
right to equality of the farmers, and is arbitrary and disproportionate. The notification
creates an (i) unreasonable classification, as there is (ii) no intelligible differentia and the
(iii) classification does not have any reasonable nexus with the object that is sought to be
achieved. (iv) The notification is also arbitrary and the punishment imposed on the
farmers is disproportionate.
-II-
It is most humbly submitted that the notification amounts to violation of the fundamental
right of the farmers to life and livelihood. The right to life of the farmers has been violated
as the (i) farmers were deprived to live with human dignity and were also (ii) deprived of
their choices and liberty. (iii) The Notification violates principals of various international
instruments. (iv) Withdrawal of MSP and notification not being in accordance with
Directive Principles of State Policy also violates farmers right to livelihood.
-III-
It is most humbly submitted that the state is bound by its duty under national as well as
international law to protect and improve the environment. (i) The state did not take
effective precautionary measure to protect the environment and ignored the environment in
the course of development thereby (ii) violating the principle of sustainable development.
(iii) The state ignored the problem of pollution for years and is now using farmers as
scapegoats.
VIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND

AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE
FARMERS TO EQUALITY.
1. It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that the notification brought by the Central Govt.
dated November 10, 2019, (hereinafter to be termed as “notification”): [1.1] Is in gross
violation of the Art. 14 of the Constitution, and [1.2] The punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the farmers:
1.1. THE NOTIFICATION IS IN VIOLATION OF ART. 14.
2. The Constitution1 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It is
humbly submitted by the petitioner that the notification is a gross violation of Farmers’
fundamental right to equality. This has been substantiated in a two-fold manner hereinafter:
1.1.1. There is no reasonable classification.
3. It is humbly submitted that Art. 14 requires that all persons similarly circumstanced shall
be treated alike both in terms of privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.2 State of W.B.
v. Anwar Ali Sarkar3 gave two conditions for a legislative classification to be valid: [1]
There should be an intelligible differentia, [2] There should be a rational nexus between
the classification and the object sought by the act.
1.1.1.1. There is no intelligible differentia provided in the notification.

4. It is humbly submitted that Art. 14 permits reasonable classification for the purpose of
disposition.4 The subject matter of legislation should be a well-defined class founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes that subject matter from the others left out.5
Reliance is placed on Ram Dial v. State of Punjab6 where §14, Punjab Municipalities Act,
1911, empowered the state to take a decision of disqualifying someone to contest the
1
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
2
Shashikant Laxman Kale. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 2114.
3
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
4
S.K. Chakraborty v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 575.
5
Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712.
6
Ram Dial v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 1518.
1
election, without issuing a show-cause notice to the affected parties, and, §16 required the
Govt. to provide an opportunity of hearing, the court struck down §14 as discriminatory.
5. It is submitted that there are various factors other than stubble burning, which are
responsible for causing air pollution such as construction and demolition activities, open
dumping of waste/garbage, unpaved roads/pits, road dust, garbage burning, traffic
congestion.7
6. It is submitted that the pollution in Dilprastha soared to such a level that it was consistently
ranked amongst the top three most polluted cities in the world.8 There was a constant
increase in lung and respiratory disease.9 The notification imposed a fine of Rupees
1,00,000 per instance with withdrawal from the MSP scheme making the farmers a separate
class among all the reasons of pollution. There is no reason to believe that the stubble
burning is causing maximum pollution out of all the reasons so as to impose punishment
on it however the notification has created a new classification based on non-intelligible
differentia.
7. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the differentiation of stubble burning by farmers

from other reasons of pollution is segregation without any rational or an intelligible
differentia and therefore, is null and void.
1.1.1.2. There is no rational nexus between the classification and the object
sought by the notification.
8. It is humbly submitted that for a classification to be valid, it must necessarily satisfy two
tests. First, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on just objective. And secondly, the
choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to
the objective sought to be achieved.10
9. It is submitted that Art. 48 A11 states that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. During the festival
7
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, IA NOS.158128 AND 158129 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.13029 OF
1985.
8
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
9
10
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 2 SCC 772.
11
INDIA CONST. Art. 48A.
2
season, that is between October and February, more than 40 recognized and other
dangerous forms of firecrackers are used.12
10. It is also submitted that in October 2019, in the week following the celebrations of the light
festival, many areas in Dilprastha recorded an AQI of 999, beyond which reading is not
possible, which was due to the vast amounts of cracker burning and the humongous number
of vehicles plying on the road of NCR.13 The aforesaid notification does not establish a
rational nexus between the classification and the object sought by the Notification. More
than 60% of the population of Purabdesh is working in the agriculture sector with reliance
on the traditional methods of agriculture.14 Stubble burning is a common phenomenon of
the traditional method after the combine harvesting techniques in rice-wheat crop
rotation.15
11. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that not only the classification is based on unreasonable
and arbitrary grounds, but also, there is no reasonable nexus between the object sought by
the Notification.
1.1.2. The notification is in violation of natural justice.
12. It is humbly submitted that wherever there is arbitrariness, whether it be of the legislature,
executive or of authority under Art. 12, Art. 14 would spring into action, and strike down
the said action.16 The expression ‘arbitrarily’ means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or
done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, non-rational, or
acting without reason of judgement depending on the will alone.17 From a positivistic point
of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.18
13. It is submitted that the notification violates the natural justice principle of Just, Fair and
Reasonable. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India19, and in Union of India v.
12
P. Mukherjee, ‘Fireworks makes Diwali a dangerous festiva.’, The Down to Earth, (September 22, 2020, 19:28)
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/air/fireworks-make-diwali-a-dangerous-festival-for-children-and-
the-elderly-51686.
13
14
15
16
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
17
Sharma Transport v. Government of AP, (2002) 2 SCC 188.
18
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 SCR (2) 348.
19
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
3
Tulsiram Patel20, the court has held that non-observance of the principles of natural justice
in State action violates Art. 14. It forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to
the denial of equality as guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution. The court must
accordingly interpose and quash the discriminatory action.21
14. It is submitted that the notification was to be implemented with immediate effect, putting
an absolute and immediate ban on the activities of stubble burning.22 The notification for
the convenience of the government bizarrely made the farmers responsible for the pollution
in NCR. Poor and small farmers who do not possess adequate resources to shift to alternate
methods of disposal of agricultural waste were completely neglected.
15. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the notification is arbitrary and violates the natural
justice principle of Just, Fair and Reasonable, and is, therefore, in violation of the
fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution.
1.2. THE PUNITIVE ACTIONS ON THE FARMERS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE.
16. It is humbly submitted that the notification passed by the Central Government dated
November 10, 2019, imposes disproportionate punishment on the farmers.
17. It is submitted that in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.23
the court devised a test; that even if one or the other following conditions were satisfied
viz. the order was contrary to law, or irrelevant factors were considered, or relevant factors
were not considered or the decision was one that no reasonable person could have taken.
18. It is submitted that an amount of fine should not be harsh or excessive. 24 The penalty
imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art. 14.25 The
Common but differentiated responsibilities principle balances, on the one hand, the need
for all states to take responsibility for global environmental problems and, on the other
hand, the need to recognize the wide differences in levels of economic development
20
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398.
21
Vijay Bhagubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 GLR 701.
22
Moot Proposition, ¶23.
23
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA).
24
Shahfjad Khan Maebub Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 570.
25
Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P., (1983) 2 SCC 442.
4
between states.26 The Supreme Court has held that only "in exceptional and rare cases"
where the "punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the
court" can the court interfere with the punishment.27
19. It is submitted that 60% population of the Purabdesh population works in the agriculture
sector with reliance on traditional methods of agriculture.28 The Constitution of Purabdesh
(“Constitution”) declares Purabdesh to be a socialist republic, assuring its citizens of
justice, equality, and liberty.29 KPP region has two crop cycles- one from May to September
and another from November to April.30 Farmers barely get much time between these crop
cycle.
20. It is submitted that the Central Govt. with the help of State Govt. has taken several that
which have not been implemented in totality.31 This incompetence of the Govt. is the reason
why 7 farmers reportedly committed suicide as a mark of protest against the notification
after protests in the KPP region.32 It is contended that the poor farmers are bizarrely and
conveniently seen as responsible for urban pollution in NCR, and are forced to bear
disproportionate costs of switching to alternate means of stubble disposal.33
21. It is submitted that not all the farmers are rich and have large farmlands. There is no proper
mechanism provided as to whether a difference will be allowed considering the financial
status of the farmers.
22. It is, therefore, humbly submitted from the side of the petitioners that the notification is
disproportionate, arbitrary, and in violation of farmers’ fundamental Right to equality
guaranteed under the Constitution.34
26
Charlotte Epstein, ‘Common but differentiated responsibilities’, Britannica, (September 27, 2020, 20:22)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-but-differentiated-responsibilities.
27
Union of India v. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463.
28
Moot Proposition ¶ 1.
29
30
31
32
33
Id.
34
5
2. THAT THE NOTIFICATION AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD OF FARMERS.
23. It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that the notification brought by the Central Govt.
dated November 10, 2019, is: [2.1] In violation of Farmers’ Right to Life, and [2.2] In
violation of Farmers’ Right to Livelihood.
2.1. THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE FARMERS.
24. Art. 2135 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. It is humbly submitted by
the petitioner that the notification is in gross violation of farmers’ fundamental right to life.
This has been substantiated hereinafter:
2.1.1. The right to live with human dignity has been curtailed by the notification.
25. It is humbly submitted that the notification deprives farmers of their right to live with
human dignity guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
26. It is submitted that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that
goes along with it.36 By the term ‘life’, as here used, something more is meant than mere
animal existence.37 The term life includes all that gives meaning to a man’s life including
his traditions, culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure.38 The
right to live as a human being is secured only when a human being is assured of all facilities
to benefit himself.39
27. It is submitted that human dignity is an essential element for survival. With more than 60%
population of Purabdesh working in the agricultural sector reliance on traditional methods
of farming,40 this notification snatches away the dignity of farmers from them. For those
small farmers who have very small farmlands and do not have high-income sources, this
notification is a great betrayal to their aspirations from the Govt. and constitution, which
assures them Justice, Equality and Liberty.41
35
Id.
36
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
37
Munn v. Illinois, 24 L ED 77: 94 US 113 (1877).
38
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 251, 256.
39
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549.
40
41
6
28. Therefore, it is humbly submitted from the side of petitioners that the notification deprives
farmers of their right to live with human dignity guaranteed under the Constitution.42
2.1.2. Farmers have been deprived of their right to choices and liberty.
29. It is humbly submitted that the Govt. through this notification deprives farmers of their
right of choices and liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the constitution.
30. It is submitted that the ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of the human
personality.43 The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude and it
covers a variety of rights which go to constitute personal liberty. 44 It includes all those
innumerable aspects of personal liberty which it is impossible exhaustively to enumerate.45
31. It is also submitted that the farmers had by and large only two options with them, either to
opt the traditional method for disposal of agricultural waste or to shift to the new and
alternate methods which were costly, as the Govt. had to provide monetary incentives for
the same. These Govt. policies of providing monetary benefits to the farmers are long term
in nature and are not implemented in totality.46
32. Therefore, it is humbly submitted by the side of petitioners that the notification deprives
farmers of their right of choices and liberty as it is not monetarily feasible for all the farmers
to shift to alternative methods of agricultural disposal within a short span of time.
2.1.3. Deprivation of the right to life violates various international instruments.
33. It is humbly submitted that through the notification the Govt. is escaping from its
responsibilities determined under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and
Declaration on the Right to Development (DRD).
34. It is submitted that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.47 States
should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for the realization of the
right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality of opportunity for all in their
access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and the
42
43
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union Of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
44
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
45
P.K. Tripathy, Spotlights on Constitutional Interpretation 166 (1972).
46
Moot Clarification, ¶ 5.
47
UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Right to Development: resolution, Art. 3, A/RES/41/128 (1986).
7
fair distribution of income.48 The state shall recognise a decent living for themselves and
their families in accordance with the provisions of the present covenant.49
35. It is also submitted that the Declaration may not be a legally binding instrument but it shows
how India understood the nature of human rights.50 The fundamental rights guaranteed
under our Constitution are in conforming line with those in the Declaration and The
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant, Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights to which India has become a party by ratifying them.51
36. It is submitted that the notification is not honouring the UDHR and other international
instruments to which the Govt. of Purabdesh is a signatory or has ratified. The Govt. of
Purabdesh has very conveniently held farmers responsible for pollution in NCR and forced
them to bear disproportionate costs of switching to alternative means of stubble disposal.52
7 farmers committed suicide as a mark of protest against the notification.53
37. Therefore, it is humbly submitted by the side of petitioners that a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and
withdrawal from the MSP scheme54 is grossly violating farmers’ right to life guaranteed
under the Constitution55, UDHR, ICESCR and DRD.
2.2. THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE

FARMERS.
38. The right to livelihood is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21.56 It is humbly
submitted by the petitioners that the notification violates the Right to livelihood of the
farmers. This has been further explained hereinafter:
2.2.1. Revocation of MSP violates the right to livelihood of the farmers.
39. It is humbly submitted that the notification severely violates the fundamental right to
livelihood of farmers guaranteed under Art. 21 of the constitution.
48
Id., Art. 8.
49
UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 7, Dec. 16, 1966,
993 U.N.T.S. 3.
50
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
51
Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 605.
52
53
Id.
54
Moot Proposition, ¶23.
55
56
Id.
8
40. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and Ors v. Bombay Municipal
Corpn.57 held that if the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right
to live, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of
his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. A very good harvest in any year results
in a sharp fall in the price of that commodity during that year which in turn will have an
adverse impact on the future supply as farmers withdraw from sowing that crop in the
next/following years.58
41. It is also submitted that MSP is a tool that gives a guarantee to the farmers, prior to the
sowing season, that a fair amount of price is fixed to their upcoming crop to encourage
higher investment and production of agricultural commodities.59 The MSP is in the nature
of an assured market at a minimum guaranteed price offered by the Govt.60
42. It is submitted that under the notification, the existing benefits under the MSP scheme will
be withdrawn from a farmer who is found engaging even in a single incidence of stubble
burning.61 7 farmers have committed suicide as a mark of protest.62
43. Therefore, it is humbly submitted from the side of petitioners that the notification deprives
farmers of their right of livelihood by the withdrawal of the MSP scheme on even a single
incidence without considering all the relevant factors necessary.
2.2.2. The notification is not in accordance with the directive principles.
44. It is humbly submitted that the notification is in violation of the right to livelihood under
Art. 21 read with Art. 38(2) and Art. 39(a) of the Constitution.
45. It is submitted that the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) directs the Govt. to
apply these principles in making laws to establish a just society in the country. Social
security is a facet of socio-economic justice to the people and a means to livelihood.63 It
would thus be well settled law that the Preamble Chapter of Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles accord right to livelihood as a meaningful life, social security and
57
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 180.
58
NITI Aayog Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office Government of India, Evaluation Study on
Efficacy of Minimum Support Prices (MSP) on Farmers
(2016),https://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/writereaddata/files/document_publication/MSP-report.pdf.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
62
63
L.I.C. Of India v. Consumer Education and Research, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
9
disablement benefits are integral schemes of socio-economic justice to the people in

particular to the middle class and lower middle class and all offendable people.64
46. It is also submitted that the measure must not be clearly more costly or more burdensome
than equally alternative measures, which is also described by some jurists as a concept of
necessity and narrow tailoring and can be referred to as ‘means’ or ‘alternative-means’
proportionality.65
47. It is submitted that the notification brought by the Govt. disregards the DPSPs. Most of the
farmers working in the agricultural sector rely on traditional methods for farming. 66 It is
not feasible for every farmer to adopt alternative methods of farming in a very short span
of time. The policies framed by the Govt. are long term and have not been implemented in
totality.67
48. Therefore, it is humbly submitted from the side of the petitioners that the notification
grossly violates farmers’ Right to livelihood guaranteed under Art. 21 read with Art. 38(2)
and Art. 39(a) of the Constitution.
3. THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED ITS DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO PROTECT
AND IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT.
49. It is humbly submitted by the Petitioners that it is the constitutional duty of the state to
protect and improve the environment and respect the international obligation under Art.
48A and 51C respectively. The Govt. has clearly failed in its duty and blatantly ignored the
environment in the process of economic development for decades until the condition
became too severe. This has been further substantiated in a three-fold manner: [3.1] the
state has failed its duty to protect the environment, [3.2] has not adhered to the international
obligations, and [3.3] the principle of sustainable development has been violated.
64
Id.
65
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union Of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
66
67
Moot Clarification, ¶ 5.
10
3.1. THE STATE HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE

ENVIRONMENT.
50. The state is duty bound to protect the environment under Art. 48A of the Constitution. The
Right to wholesome68 and clean environment69 is a fundamental right implicit under Art.
21 and must be safeguarded. The State has ignored the environment in the process of
economic development and has blatantly failed in its duty to protect the environment. This
has further been substantiated hereinafter:
3.1.1. The need for judicial intervention may not have arisen.
51. It is humbly submitted that if the government had acted in an effective way, the need for
judicial intervention may not have arisen.
52. It is submitted that the Govt. is yet to play a major role in the prevention, protection and
promotion of the environment by effective implementation of the Constitutional
provisions, unlike the judiciary.70 It is unfortunate that the executive has failed to do its job
and continues to be apathetic and inert on when the Constitution or law requires them to
act. Its failure needs to be corrected by judicial intervention. The judicial intervention has
its own constraints and limitations71 but given that the right to pollution free environment
comes under the ambit of Art. 2172 which is a fundamental right.73
53. It is also submitted that in the absence of any definite measures taken by the past Govt. to
prevent and control the increasing pollution in the NCR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Purabdesh over the last two decades, in several matters of public interest litigation has
passed judgments/ orders to improve the situation of the environment in the NCR.
54. It is further submitted that the “judicial overreach” is the direct result of legislative and
executive “underreach”.74
68
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR. 1990 SC 1480.
69
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362.
70
INDIA CONST. art. 256-257.
71
72
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
73
INDIA CONST. art 21.
74
11
3.1.2. The state has violated Art. 48A of the Constitution.
55. It is humbly submitted that Art. 48A lays a foundation for a jurisprudence of environment
protection75 and casts a duty upon the state to protect and improve the environment76 it is
further submitted that the right to a wholesome and pollution free environment is a
fundamental right under Art. 2177, further the fundamental rights and directive principles
are supplementary to each other.
56. It is submitted that Fundamental Rights are means to achieve the goal of DPSP and thus,
must be read collectively78 therefore, even if the directive principles are not enforceable in
the court of law79, it is necessary to make a reference to the DPSP80 in order to protect the
fundamental right to healthy environment guaranteed by the constitution.81 Even if Art.
48A becomes enforceable through the expanding interpretation of Art. 2182 There is a
constitutional imperative on the Govt. is to take adequate measures to promote, protect and
improve both the man-made and the natural environment.83
57. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Govt. has failed in its duty to protect the
environment by ignoring the environment in the process and has put the life of a sizeable
population in jeopardy.
3.1.3. The state has failed in its duty and violated the doctrine of public trust.
58. It is humbly submitted that the “doctrine of public trust” holds the Govt. as trustee to the
environment and enjoins upon the Govt. to safeguard the natural resources for the
enjoyment of the general public.84 Reliance is placed upon M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
wherein the apex court held the "doctrine of the public trust" to be a part of constitutional
jurisprudence.85
75
M.C. Mehta v. State of Orissa, AIR. 1992 Ori. 225.
76
Nagrik Chetna Manch v. The State Government of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 BOM 2.
77
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
78
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645.
79
80
Nagrik Chetna Manch v. The State Government of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 BOM 2.
81
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.C. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62.
82
3 Dr. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India 4171 (8th ed., 2008).
83
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 577.
84
Shailesh R. Shah v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 8 SCC 462.
85
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
12
59. It is submitted that the Govt. has ignored the problem for a long time and hasn’t taken any
effective measures to curb the problem.
60. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect
the environment.86
3.2. THE STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATIONS.
61. It is humbly submitted that the Govt. is a party to the international conventions and treaties
has not complied with them. The UOP having ratified the Paris agreement and UNFCCC
and is under an obligation to reduce the greenhouse gas emission.
62. It is submitted that the Govt. is duty bound under Art. 51C to foster respect for international
obligations. Unless overridden by the clear rules of domestic law,87 the domestic courts are
under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and treaties. 88
Reliance is placed on Keshavnanda Bharti v. State of Kerala wherein the apex court stated
that “in view of Art. 51 of the directive principles, this Court must interpret language of the
Constitution, […] in the light of the United Nations Charter and the solemn declaration
subscribed to by UOI.”89
63. It is also submitted that the treaties are binding upon the parties and demand performance
in good faith.90 Whereas the UOP hasn’t taken any effective measures to reduce the
emission of greenhouse gas and is using the farmers as a scapegoat.
64. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Govt. has blatantly ignored the obligations and
has failed to take any effective measures to reduce the greenhouse gas emission in the city
of Dilprastha itself.
3.3. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN

VIOLATED.
65. It is humbly submitted that sustainable development provides for close interdependence
between the policy goals of development and environmental protection 91. Sustainable
86
Id.
87
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
88
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759.
89
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
90
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 26, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (1969).
91
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 4, U.N. Doc A/Conf. 151/5/Rev.1 (June 16, 1992).
[Hereinafter ‘Rio Declaration’]
13
development is a constitutional requirement.92 It is to be treated as an integral part of life

under Art. 21 of the Constitution.93 The right to development is an inalienable human and
fundamental right94 and encompasses much more than economic well-being.95 The apex
court has held that adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a sine qua non
for maintaining the balance between the rights to environment and development.96
66. It is submitted that the Govt. has failed to keep in mind the "principle of proportionality"
based on the concept of balance.97 No development is possible without some adverse effect
on the ecology and environment,98 but development shall have to be in closest possible
harmony with the environment.99 A balance has to be struck between the two interests.100
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an
integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.101
67. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Govt. is in clear violation of the principle of
sustainable development and its essential features by way of:
3.3.1. There is a violation of the precautionary principle.
68. It is humbly submitted that the precautionary principle is an essential feature of sustainable
development.102 It states, “..lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”103
Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but
also by ‘justified’ concern or risk potential.104 The State must anticipate, prevent and attack
the causes of environmental degradation.105
92
T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606.
93
94
Declaration on the Right to Development: resolution, Art. 1 (1986).
95
Samantha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 8 SCC 191.
96
97
98
Nirbhai Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 15 SCC 494.
99
Calcutta Pinjrapole Society v. S. Banerjee, AIR 1952 Cal. 891.
100
101
Rio Declaration, Principle 4.
102
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 411.
103
104
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.C. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62.
105
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
14
69. It is submitted that the toxic gases combined with particulate matter are the result of
vehicular and industrial pollution. These toxic gases can be inhaled that pass quickly from
the lungs into the blood, permitting rapid circulation throughout the body thereby affecting
the health of the public at large.
70. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that it was the pollution from the city itself that caused
the plight among the people and not the farmers and that Govt. failed to stop it.
3.3.2. There is a violation of the principle of inter-generational equity.
71. It is humbly submitted that, the Rio Declaration, 1992106; Stockholm Declaration, 1972,107
etc often refer to intergenerational equity as an important aspect of the concept of
sustainable development. The core principle behind this idea is the conservation for future
use of resources, including their quality and that of the natural environment and not to
imperil the safety and well-being of the future generations.108 Preserving the environment
in the present would be protecting the future generation’s interests as well.109
72. It is submitted that the SC itself held that “Humans have a fundamental Right to a healthy
environment, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved
and preserved in such a way that present as well as the future generations are aware of
them equally”. 110
73. Therefore, it is humbly submitted in the present case, there exists failure of the Govt. in
taking any substantive preventive measures to protect the environment, and to escape the
liability for the failure, the Govt. have used farmers to shift the entire blame for which the
govt itself is culpable. It is evident, the Govt. did not take mitigative steps and prevent
further degradation of the environment to protect inter-generational equity.
106
107
Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Principle 1, 11 I.L.M.
1416 (1972).
108
State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149.
109
G. Sundar Rajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620.
110
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549.
15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is prayed
that this Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to:
I. DECLARE THAT the Notification dated November 10, 2019, is arbitrary,

disproportionate, and amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the farmers to
equality
II. DECLARE THAT the Notification dated November 10, 2019, amounts to violation of
Right to Life and Livelihood of the farmers.
III. HOLD THAT, the Union of Purabdesh has failed its duty and obligation to protect and
improve the environment.
IV. ORDER THAT, the government of Union of Purabdesh shall effective immediately
withdraw the Notification.
And/or Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests
of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Counsel Shall Forever Pray.
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Petitioner)
IX

Kartavya, Celebration of 70 Constitution Day Moot Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kartavya, Celebration of 70 Constitution Day Moot Competition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kartavya, Celebration of 70 Constitution Day Moot Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KARTAVYA, CELEBRATION OF 70th CONSTITUTION DAY MOOT COMPETITION

Team Code: C044

KARTAVYA CELEBRATION OF 70th CONSTITUTION DAY

MOOT COMPETITION 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. _________ OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PURABDESH

KUDRETI KHETI ABHIYAN .……..…………………………………………..… PETITIONER

UNION OF PURABDESH ………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. II

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... V

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... VI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................... VIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1

1. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND

1.1. THE NOTIFICATION IS IN VIOLATION OF ART. 14. ..................................... 1

1.1.1. There is no reasonable classification. ............................................................... 1

1.1.2. The notification is in violation of natural justice. ............................................ 3

1.2. THE PUNITIVE ACTIONS ON THE FARMERS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE.

2. THAT THE NOTIFICATION AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

2.1. THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE FARMERS. ....... 6

2.2. THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATES RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE

2.2.2. The notification is not in accordance with the directive principles.................. 9

3.1. THE STATE HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE

3.2. THE STATE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL

3.3. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN

3.3.1. There is a violation of the precautionary principle. ....................................... 14

3.3.2. There is a violation of the principle of inter-generational equity. .................. 15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................................... IX

DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

MSP Minimum Support Price

KPP Krishi Pradhan Pradesh

NCR National Capital Region

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

UOP Union of Purabdesh

1. INDIA CONST. .......................................................................................................... passim

1. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development ......................................... 12, 13, 14

1. Charlotte Epstein, ‘Common but differentiated responsibilities’, Britannica ................. 5

1. NITI Aayog Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office Government of India,

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

3. Over a period of time Dilprastha has become a vast conglomeration of industrial,

THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND

THAT THE NOTIFICATION AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

1. THAT THE NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND

1.1. THE NOTIFICATION IS IN VIOLATION OF ART. 14.

1.1.1. There is no reasonable classification.

1.1.1.1. There is no intelligible differentia provided in the notification.

7. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the differentiation of stubble burning by farmers