Memorial For Petitioner SNMC-02

RAFFLES UNIVERSITY, NEEMRANA, RAJASTHAN
SCHOOL OF LAW
MOOT COURT, PRE- TRAIL PREPARATION AND PARTICIPATION IN TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS
INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT- 1
ANNEXTURE- A (CIVIL LAW PROBLEM)
NAME- YUKTI BHARDWAJ
CLASS- BBA.LLB(HONS.)
ROLL NO.- 19RU12005
SUBJECT- MOOT COURT EXERCISE & INTERNSHIP
SUBJECT CODE- LCP- IV
ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION DATE- 6TH MARCH, 2024
NAME AND DESIGNATION OF EXAMINATION IN- CHARGE-
DR. ROOPESH MALIK

1ST JUSTICE RR AGGRAWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2024
Before
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RUNITIA
Under
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF RUNITIA
In the matter of
ENVIRO-SOLDIERS & Ors.……………………………………………….PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF RUNITIA & Ors….…...….…………………………………. RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DRAWN AND FILED

BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
2
Written Submission on Behalf of the Petitioner
2024
INDEX
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12
ISSUE 1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
ISSUE 2 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
ISSUE 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
ISSUE 4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………21
ISSUE 5 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23
ISSUE 6 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26
PRAYER 27
3
2024
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. BOOKS REFERRED
SL. NO NAME
1. M.P.Jain — Indian Constitution Law Vol.1
2. Durga Das Basu— Introduction to The Constitution of Indistan
3. Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap — Constitution of India
4. A.V. Dicey — An Introduction to The Study of The Law of The

Constitution
5. M. V. Pylee — India’s Constitution
II. LEGAL DATABASE
SL.NO. NAME
1. Case Mine
2. Hein Online
3. Lexis Nexis
4. Manupatra
5. SCC Online
III. STATUTES
SL. NO. NAME
4
2024
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3. THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, 1976
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SL.NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

1. Art. Article
2. Hon’ble Honourable
3. i.e. That Is
4. v. Versus
5. AIR All IndistanReport
6. SC Supreme Court
7. HC High Court
8. SCC Supreme Court Cases
9. SCR Supreme Court Report
10. Ors. Others
11. & And
12. Pg. Page
13. Anr. Another
14. Bom Bombay
5
2024
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the respondent has approached the Hon’ble High Court of
Runitia under Article 227 of Constitution of Indistan, that reads as: Remedies for enforcement
of rights conferred by this Part –
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
⁠(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts.
⁠(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and
officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
⁠Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3)
shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall
require the previous approval of the Governor.
⁠(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence
over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
The counsel for the petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits before the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court and accepts that this court has the power to
adjudicate the present case.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETSFORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTION &

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.
6
2024
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
1. State of Runitia is a component state unit of the Union of Indistan which is a sovereign,
socialist, democratic and secular republic having its Constitution parimateria to other
commonwealth countries including Indistan. Indistan had abundant Nanoplutino (a rare
radioactive material used as source of nuclear energy) but it had not exploited it
sufficiently as the ruling party at the center followed conservative governance policy.
2. During mid 2010, the Prime Minister of Indistan opened the Foreign Direct Investment
(FDI) up to 100% in all economic sectors except nuclear energy. Consequently, limited
extraction and exports on prescribed statutory restrictions on Nanopluto were
permitted. Indistan used to claim that it restricted Nanopluto keeping in mind the
sensitive geographical, environmental and economic significance of the material as it
was based generally in coastal areas where extraction had potential to pose threat to
biodiversity, environment and human life.
3. Gudsridge is a village in Runitia and is rich in Nanopluto as it is surrounded by the
Bay of Red Sea and Anderban Forest Reserve Area where the material was found in
abundance. In 2012, the United Nations Climate Control Conference reached on
decision that Nanopluto was the only means to produce clean, efficient and sustainable
energy.
4. This policy faced resistance from opposition and social workers but Indistan ignored
the resistance. It entered into a MOU with Robert Power Corporation, Denbord
(hereinafter RPC)- a major global energy player owned by government of United States
of Presno. MOU between Indistan and RPC contained the stipulation that RPC will
establish a nuclear power plant at village Gudsridge in Runitia, will transfer technology
and would also provide 100% local employment.
5. Installation of Plant involved a four staged Consenting Process and the last stage was
named as Consent of Operations which was crucial to start the operations in the plant.
On hearing rumors regarding a legal challenge to the plant installation, the government
of Indistan accelerated the Consenting Process.
6. For establishment, the government acquired a large portion of agricultural land in
Gudsridge promising the residents 100% employment and handsome compensation.
Total 30% of the villagers accepted compensation cheques and rest were forced to
7
2024
surrender their claims in exercise of the constitutional dictum of eminent domain. But
the compensation which was agreed to be received by villagers was too less than market
rates.
7. The Indistani government failed to take into consideration many substantial factors
including the land fertility, ecological significance, and it compromised with the
consenting processed of first and second stage and embarked directly upon third and
fourth processes. In fact, the installation of plant in Gudsridge generated significant job
opportunities for people all across the Indistan except the village of Gudsridge. Actually
only 50% eligible unemployed youth of the Gudsridge was employed in the Plant. The
displaced villagers were allotted less fertile land adjacent to the Plant.
8. On 14th April 2018, a leakage in the power plant caused contamination in the
groundwater and released radioactive gases into the atmosphere along with posing a
health hazard to the people of Gudsridge.
9. Due to this incident, many villagers were died, many developed cancer and other
incurable disorders. The plant also released heated water into the sea and nearby areas
which destroyed fisheries and other wildlife species. Excessive extraction also resulted
into slight land tremors in fertile agricultural areas of Gudsridge.
10. On 10th December, 2018, the victims approached the Claims Commission established
under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. On 13th April, 2019, the
Claims Commissioner ordered for the payment of Rs. 5 Lacs to each victim. However,
due to inadequate compensation awarded by the Commission, the aggrieved parties
further approached to the High Court of Runitia on 20 June, 2019.
11. 12. Meanwhile, Enviro-Soldiers- a NGO working for environmental matters, filed a
PIL on 25th June, 2019 by challenging the amount of compensation as inadequate,
forceful land acquisition, violation of other fundamental rights of the villagers by the
state of Indistan.
8
2024
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE DECISION TO ALLOW FDI UP TO 100% IN OTHER

SECTORS AND UP TO 49% IN NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL?
II. WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION CARRIED INTO VILLAGE

GUDSRIDGE WAS VALID?
III. WHETHER THE STIPULATION AS TO MANDATORY

COLLABORATION OF RPC WITH INPCL AND BYPASS OF THE
STAGES OF CONSENTING PROCESS AGREED BETWEEN INDISTANI
GOVERNMENT AND RPC VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
VILLAGERS OF GUDSRIDGE?
IV. WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ORDERED BY

CLAIMS COMMISSIONER UNDER CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR
DAMAGE ACT, 2010 WAS JUSTIFIABLE? IF NOT, THEN WHETHER
THE HIGH COURT HAD COMPETENCE TO QUASH THE AWARD
DECLARED BY CLAIMS COMMISSION?
V. WHETHER THE ENTIRE INCIDENT OF GAS LEAKAGE CAUSED

SIGNIFICANT HARM TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF VICTIMS?
VI. BY KEEPING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

CASE, WHETHER OTHER JUST-EQUITABLE AND FIT REMEDY CAN
BE PROVIDED?
9
2024
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue 1. Whether the decision to allow fdi up to 100% in other sectors and up to 49% in nuclear
energy sector was constitutional?
It is humbly submitted to hon’ble court that decision to allow FDI upto 49% in nuclear energy
is unconstitutional. India's approach to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the nuclear energy
sector has been influenced by various factors, including historical, political, strategic, and
regulatory considerations.
Issue 2. Whether the land acquisition carried into village gudsridge was valid?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High court that the land acquisition carroed into the
village of gudsridge was not valid. Land acquisition for nuclear power plants involves a
complex process that combines regulatory requirements, environmental considerations, public
consultations, and legal frameworks. The process typically begins with site selection studies
conducted by the government or nuclear energy authorities. Factors such as geological stability,
proximity to water sources for cooling, transportation infrastructure, population density, and
environmental impact assessments are considered during site selection.
Issue 3. Whether the stipulation as to mandatory collaboration of rpc with inpcl and bypass of
the stages of consenting process agreed between indistani government and rpc violated
fundamental rights of villagers of gudsridge?
It has been humbly submitted, that the collaboration of RPC with INCPL and bypass of stages
of consenting process agreed between Indistani government and RPC has violated the
fundamental rights of the villagers.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble high court that whether the stipulation as to
mandatory collaboration of RPC with INCPL and bypass of the stages of consenting process
agreed between Indistani government and RPC didn’t violated fundamental rights of villagers
of gudsridge.
Issue 4. Whether the amount of compensation ordered by claims commissioner under civil
liability for nuclear damage act, 2010 was justifiable? If not, then whether the high court had
competence to quash the award declared by claims commission?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the compensation provide was inadequate,
also the high court have power to quash the orders. Rs. 5L is clearly inadequate for a life of a
person.When allowing compensation, especially in legal contexts such as civil liability for
10
2024
damages or personal injury claims, several factors are typically considered to ensure fairness
and accuracy.
Issue 5: whether the entire incident of gas leakage caused significant harm to fundamental
rights of victims?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the entire gas leakage has caused
significant harm to the fundamental rights of the victims.The legacy of the tragedy continues
to underscore the importance of robust legal frameworks, accountability mechanisms, public
awareness, and international cooperation in preventing industrial disasters and upholding
fundamental rights in disaster response and recovery efforts.
Issue 6. By keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, whether other just-
equitable and fit remedy can be provided?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that other just-equitable and fit remedy that can
be provided. These fundamental rights and the government's defenses highlight the complex
legal, ethical, and humanitarian dimensions of the tragedy and the efforts made to address its
aftermath and uphold the rights of the victims.
11
2024
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE DECISION TO ALLOW FDI UP TO 100% IN OTHER

SECTORS AND UP TO 49% IN NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL?
1. It is humbly submitted to hon’ble court that decision to allow FDI upto 49% in nuclear
energy is unconstitutional.
2. India's approach to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the nuclear energy sector has
been influenced by various factors, including historical, political, strategic, and
regulatory considerations. Here are some key reasons why Indistaninitially restricted or
limited FDI in the nuclear energy sector:
3. First, Strategic Importance: Nuclear energy is considered a strategic sector due to its
implications for national security, technology transfer, and international agreements.
India, as a nuclear-armed country, has traditionally maintained strict control over its
nuclear capabilities and activities, including those involving foreign investment.
4. Secondly, Technology Control: The development and operation of nuclear power
plants involve sensitive technologies and materials. Indistanhas been cautious about
allowing foreign entities direct involvement in its nuclear energy infrastructure to
maintain control over technology transfer and safeguard against potential security risks.
5. Thirdly, International Agreements: India's nuclear policies and regulations are also
influenced by international agreements and obligations. For example, before the Indo-
US civil nuclear deal in 2008, Indistanwas largely isolated from global nuclear
commerce due to its status as a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT). This isolation impacted FDI opportunities in the nuclear energy sector.
6. Forth, Regulatory Framework: Indistanhas established a robust regulatory
framework for nuclear energy, including safety standards, liability provisions, and
environmental regulations. Integrating foreign investment into this framework while
ensuring compliance with domestic laws and international standards has been a
complex process.
7. Fifth, Public Concerns: Nuclear energy projects often face public scrutiny and
concerns about safety, environmental impact, and long-term liabilities. Balancing
12
2024
public opinion, regulatory requirements, and investment interests has been a challenge
in promoting FDI in the nuclear sector.
8. Despite these challenges, Indistanhas taken steps to liberalize its FDI policy in nuclear
energy over time. The Indo-US civil nuclear deal marked a significant shift by opening
avenues for international cooperation, technology transfer, and potential investment in
India's nuclear power projects. Subsequent policy reforms and amendments have
further eased restrictions and encouraged partnerships with foreign entities in the
nuclear energy sector, albeit with certain safeguards and regulatory oversight.
9. Also, The Bhopal gas tragedy, which occurred in 1984 at the Union Carbide pesticide
plant in Bhopal, India, led to significant debates and discussions about industrial safety,
corporate responsibility, and regulatory oversight. However, the Bhopal gas tragedy
itself was not a direct reason for restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the
nuclear energy sector in India. The reasons for limitations on FDI in nuclear energy
were primarily related to strategic, technological, and regulatory concerns specific to
the nuclear industry.
10. While the Bhopal gas tragedy highlighted the importance of stringent regulatory
oversight and corporate accountability in industrial sectors, it did not directly influence
India's policies regarding FDI in nuclear energy. The restrictions on FDI in nuclear
energy were driven by broader strategic, technological, and regulatory considerations
specific to the nuclear industry.
11. It led to thousands of deaths, injuries, and long-term health impacts on survivors. Here
are the detailed reasons why this tragedy did not directly impact FDI policies in nuclear
energy:
12. Gas tragedy was related to the chemical industry, specifically the manufacture of
pesticides. The risks, safety measures, and regulatory frameworks in the chemical
industry differ significantly from those in the nuclear energy sector. While both
industries involve hazardous substances and potential risks to public health and the
environment, the technical, operational, and regulatory aspects are distinct.
13. Nuclear energy is a strategic sector with implications for national security, technology
control, and international agreements. Indistanhas historically maintained strict control
over its nuclear capabilities and activities, including those involving foreign
investment, due to strategic considerations such as maintaining sovereignty,
safeguarding sensitive technologies, and complying with international agreements and
obligations.
13
2024
14. The restrictions on FDI in the nuclear energy sector in Indistanwere influenced by
geopolitical factors and international agreements, such as India's status as a non-
signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) until 2008. This status limited
India's access to global nuclear commerce and technology transfer, impacting FDI
opportunities in the nuclear sector independent of the Bhopal gas tragedy.
15. In summary, while the Bhopal gas tragedy highlighted the importance of stringent
regulatory oversight and corporate accountability in industrial sectors, especially
regarding hazardous substances and public safety, its direct impact on FDI policies in
the nuclear energy sector was limited due to the unique strategic, technological, and
regulatory considerations specific to nuclear energy.
14
2024
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION CARRIED INTO VILLAGE

GUDSRIDGE WAS VALID?
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High court that the land acquisition carroed
into the village of gudsridge was not valid.
2. Land acquisition for nuclear power plants involves a complex process that combines
regulatory requirements, environmental considerations, public consultations, and legal
frameworks.
3. Site Selection, the process typically begins with site selection studies conducted by the
government or nuclear energy authorities. Factors such as geological stability,
proximity to water sources for cooling, transportation infrastructure, population
density, and environmental impact assessments are considered during site selection.
4. Also, Government Approval, Once a suitable site is identified, government approvals
are sought for land acquisition and the construction of a nuclear power plant. This
involves obtaining clearances from regulatory bodies such as the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board (AERB) in India, which oversees nuclear safety and environmental
protection.
5. That, Public consultations and stakeholder engagement are essential parts of the land
acquisition process. Local communities, landowners, environmental groups, and other
stakeholders are consulted to address concerns, gather feedback, and ensure
transparency in the decision-making process.
6. Further, In India, land acquisition for public infrastructure projects, including nuclear
power plants, is governed by the Land Acquisition Act of 2013. This act outlines
procedures for acquiring land, compensation mechanisms for landowners,
rehabilitation and resettlement provisions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.
7. Also, Land acquisition for nuclear power plants involves providing fair compensation
to landowners and affected communities. Compensation packages may include
monetary compensation, alternative land allocation, employment opportunities,
infrastructure development, and support for livelihood restoration.
8. Before land acquisition and construction commence, an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) is conducted to assess potential environmental impacts, mitigation
15
2024
measures, and compliance with environmental regulations. The EIA process includes
public hearings and feedback mechanisms.
9. That, Land acquisition for nuclear power plants must comply with national and
international laws, treaties, and agreements related to nuclear energy, environmental
protection, indigenous rights, and land use. Legal frameworks ensure adherence to
safety standards, human rights, and sustainable development principles.
10. After land acquisition and construction, ongoing monitoring and compliance with
regulatory requirements continue throughout the operational phase of the nuclear power
plant. This includes safety inspections, environmental monitoring, and community
engagement initiatives.
11. One of the significant cases in Indistanwhere land acquisition by the government was
not held valid is the Indira Gandhi International Airport T3 Terminal Land
Acquisition Case1. This case is notable for the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the
government's land acquisition process and compensation for landowners affected by
the expansion of the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. The case
involved the acquisition of land by the Airports Authority of Indistan(AAI) for the
expansion of the Indira Gandhi International Airport and the construction of Terminal
3 (T3) in New Delhi. The land acquisition process faced legal challenges from affected
landowners regarding compensation and procedural irregularities. Landowners argued
that the compensation offered by the government was inadequate and did not reflect the
true market value of their land. They contended that the land acquisition process did
not comply with legal requirements, including the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which
was in force at that time. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on February 8,
2010, ruled in favor of the landowners and held that the land acquisition process by the
government was not valid.
1
2022/DHC/004370
16
2024
ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE STIPULATION AS TO MANDATORY

COLLABORATION OF RPC WITH INPCL AND BYPASS OF THE STAGES OF
CONSENTING PROCESS AGREED BETWEEN INDISTANI GOVERNMENT AND
RPC VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF VILLAGERS OF GUDSRIDGE?
1. It has been humbly submitted, that the collaboration of RPC with INCPL and bypass of
stages of consenting process agreed between Indistani government and RPC has
violated the fundamental rights of the villagers.
2. In Indistan, the installation of a nuclear power plant involves several stages, which can
be summarized as follows:
a. Site Selection and Pre-Project Activities:
 Identify potential sites based on technical feasibility, environmental

considerations, and regulatory requirements.
 Conduct site surveys, geological studies, and environmental impact assessments

(EIAs).
 Obtain necessary clearances and approvals from regulatory authorities,

including the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
b. Design and Regulatory Approvals:
c. Develop detailed engineering designs for the nuclear power plant, including
reactor design, safety systems, cooling infrastructure, and containment
structures.
d. Submit design documents to regulatory agencies like AERB for review and
approval.
e. Obtain necessary licenses and permits for construction and operation.
a. Construction and Installation:
a. Start construction of the nuclear power plant based on approved designs and
plans.
17
2024
b. Build reactor buildings, turbine halls, cooling systems, electrical

infrastructure, and other plant components.
c. Implement safety measures, quality control processes, and environmental

management practices during construction.
b. Commissioning and Operation:
a. Conduct pre-operational testing, system checks, and safety drills to ensure

readiness for operation.
b. Obtain final clearances and licenses from regulatory authorities for plant
commissioning.
c. Start commercial operation of the nuclear power plant, generating electricity

and adhering to safety protocols, regulatory requirements, and
environmental standards.
d. Regularly monitor and maintain plant systems, conduct safety inspections,

and manage nuclear waste in accordance with applicable regulations.
3. Also, Right to Property (Article 300A), The most direct impact of land acquisition is
on the right to property, guaranteed under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. This
right includes the right to own, acquire, and dispose of property. Land acquisition
involves the compulsory acquisition of land by the government for public purposes,
which can infringe upon the property rights of landowners and occupants.
4. That, Right to Livelihood (Article 21), Land acquisition can disrupt livelihoods,
especially for agrarian communities and those dependent on land-based occupations.
The right to livelihood, recognized as part of the right to life under Article 21,
encompasses the right to work, earn a living, and pursue economic activities.
Displacement due to land acquisition can impact livelihoods and economic stability.
5. Further, Right to Adequate Compensation (Article 300A and Article 14) Landowners
and affected persons have the right to receive fair and just compensation for land
acquired by the government. This right is derived from Article 300A (right to property)
and Article 14 (right to equality). Adequate compensation should reflect the market
value of the land, potential loss of income, and resettlement costs.
6. Here, Right to Housing and Shelter (Article 21), Displacement resulting from land
acquisition can affect the right to housing and shelter, which is integral to the right to
18
2024
life under Article 21. Adequate resettlement and rehabilitation measures, including
provision of housing and basic amenities, are essential to protect this right.
7. Also, Right to Environment (Article 21 and Article 48A), Land acquisition for
development projects can impact the environment, including deforestation, habitat loss,
water pollution, and disruption of ecosystems. The right to a clean and healthy
environment, recognized under Article 21 and Article 48A (Directive Principles of
State Policy), should be considered in land acquisition processes to minimize
environmental harm.
8. That, Right to Information (Article 19(1)(a), Landowners and affected communities
have the right to information about land acquisition processes, compensation
mechanisms, resettlement plans, and environmental impact assessments. Transparency
and access to information are crucial to ensure accountability and informed decision-
making.
9. Right to Participation and Consultation (Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21), Land
acquisition processes should involve meaningful consultation with affected
stakeholders, including landowners, tenants, and communities. The right to
participation and consultation, derived from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and
expression) and Article 21 (right to life), ensures that the concerns and interests of
affected persons are taken into consideration..
10. Also, Right to Cultural and Social Identity (Article 29 and Article 30): Land acquisition
can impact cultural and social identities of indigenous communities, tribes, and
marginalized groups whose livelihoods and traditions are closely linked to land. The
right to preserve and promote cultural identity, recognized under Article 29 (protection
of interests of minorities) and Article 30 (right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions), should be considered in land acquisition policies and
practices.
11. Lastly, Right to Judicial Review and Redressal (Article 32 and Article 226) Individuals
and communities affected by land acquisition have the right to seek judicial review and
redressal of grievances. The right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 (right to
move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights) and Article 226
(power of High Courts to issue writs) enables aggrieved parties to challenge land
acquisition decisions, seek fair compensation, and protect their fundamental rights
through legal recourse.
19
2024
ISSUE 4. WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ORDERED BY CLAIMS

COMMISSIONER UNDER CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT, 2010
WAS JUSTIFIABLE? IF NOT, THEN WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAD
COMPETENCE TO QUASH THE AWARD DECLARED BY CLAIMS
COMMISSION?
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the compensation provide was
inadequate, also the high court have power to quash the orders. Rs. 5L is clearly
inadequate for a life of a person.
2. When allowing compensation, especially in legal contexts such as civil liability for
damages or personal injury claims, several factors are typically considered to ensure
fairness and accuracy:
3. The severity and extent of the damage or injury suffered by the claimant are crucial
factors. This includes physical injuries, property damage, economic losses, and any
long-term impacts such as health issues or loss of livelihood.
4. Establishing a clear link between the incident or event and the damage/injury is
essential. The compensation should be directly attributable to the actions or negligence
of the responsible party.
5. Determining the legal liability of the party responsible for the damage/injury is
fundamental. This involves assessing whether there was negligence, breach of duty, or
other legal grounds for liability.
6. Consideration is given to the economic losses incurred by the claimant, including
medical expenses, loss of income, property repair or replacement costs, and other
financial impacts.
7. Non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of
consortium (if applicable), and diminished quality of life are also evaluated in
determining compensation.
8. In cases where multiple parties may share responsibility for the damage/injury, the
concept of comparative fault or contributory negligence is considered. This involves
assessing the degree of fault of each party involved.
9. Legal precedents, guidelines, and statutory provisions related to compensation in
similar cases are taken into account to ensure consistency and fairness in awarding
compensation.
20
2024
10. The strength and credibility of the evidence presented to support the claim for
compensation play a crucial role. This includes medical reports, witness testimony,
expert opinions, documentation of losses, and other relevant evidence.
11. In cases involving long-term or future damages, such as ongoing medical treatment or
loss of earning capacity, projections and assessments of future damages may be
considered.
12. Consideration of broader societal interests, public policy considerations, and principles
of equity may also influence the decision on compensation, especially in cases with
significant public impact or policy implications.
13. By taking these factors into account, the process of allowing compensation aims to
ensure that the awarded amount is fair, reasonable, and appropriately reflects the losses
and damages suffered by the claimant.
14. Also, Yes, a High Court can quash a compensation order under certain circumstances.
Here are some common scenarios in which a High Court may quash a compensation
order:
 Lack of Jurisdiction: If the court that issued the compensation order did not have the
jurisdiction or authority to do so, the High Court may quash the order.
 Procedural Irregularities: If there were procedural irregularities in the proceedings that
led to the compensation order, such as a violation of natural justice or failure to follow
prescribed legal procedures, the High Court may intervene to quash the order.
 Error of Law: If the compensation order is based on an error of law, such as
misinterpretation or misapplication of legal principles, the High Court may quash the
order.
 Unreasonable or Arbitrary Order: If the compensation order is deemed to be
unreasonable, arbitrary, or not supported by the evidence presented, the High Court
may quash the order.
 Violation of Fundamental Rights: If the compensation order violates fundamental rights
or constitutional provisions, the High Court may intervene to quash the order.
 New Evidence or Material Considerations: If new evidence or material considerations
that were not considered during the original proceedings come to light and significantly
impact the compensation order, the High Court may quash the order for reconsideration.
21
2024
ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE ENTIRE INCIDENT OF GAS LEAKAGE CAUSED

SIGNIFICANT HARM TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF VICTIMS?
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the entire gas leakage has caused
significant harm to the fundamental rights of the victims.
2. Majorly, Right to Life (Article 21)Impact: The gas leak resulted in the loss of thousands
of lives and caused significant harm to human health. Many people died within hours
of exposure, while others suffered long-term health consequences, including respiratory
ailments, vision problems, neurological disorders, and reproductive issues. Violation:
The failure of (COMPANY) to implement adequate safety measures, including a lack
of proper maintenance of safety equipment, emergency preparedness, and training of
personnel, violated the victims' right to life. The delayed medical response and
insufficient healthcare facilities exacerbated the loss of lives and health impacts.
3. Also, Right to Health (Article 21) Impacted Survivors of the gas leak experienced a
range of health problems, from respiratory distress and lung damage to eye irritation
and neurological disorders. Pregnant women exposed to the gas suffered miscarriages,
stillbirths, and birth defects in their children. Violation: The gas leak not only caused
immediate health crises but also led to long-term health complications for survivors.
The lack of adequate medical treatment, specialized healthcare facilities, and
rehabilitation programs further compromised their right to health.
4. Further, Right to Information (Article 19(1)(a)): Impact: In the aftermath of the gas
leak, there was a lack of clear and timely information about the nature of the gas, its
health effects, emergency response protocols, and safety precautions for residents.
Violation: The affected individuals and communities were not adequately informed
about the risks posed by the plant, the appropriate actions to take in case of an
emergency, and the health hazards associated with exposure to toxic chemicals. This
lack of information impeded their ability to protect themselves and seek appropriate
medical care.
5. Also, Right to Compensation and Remedies (Article 21): Impact: Many victims and
survivors faced economic hardships due to medical expenses, loss of income, and
inability to work because of health issues. The delayed and contentious compensation
22
2024
processes added to their suffering.Violation: The victims' right to seek redressal and
access to effective remedies, including fair compensation, was hindered by legal
complexities, disputes over liability, and delays in legal proceedings. The compensation
awarded in some cases was deemed inadequate to cover the full extent of losses and
damages suffered by the victims.
6. Further, Right to Environment (Article 21 and Article 48A) Impact: The gas leak
resulted in severe environmental pollution, including air pollution from toxic gases, soil
contamination from chemical spills, and water pollution from waste disposal. The local
ecosystem and agricultural lands were adversely affected.Violation: The right to a clean
and healthy environment, recognized under Article 21 and Article 48A, was violated
due to the lack of proper industrial waste management, environmental monitoring, and
regulatory oversight. The environmental damage caused by the gas leak had long-
lasting effects on the health and livelihoods of communities in and around Bhopal.
7. Here, Right to Safety and Occupational Health (Article 21)Impact: Workers and
employees at the Union Carbide plant were exposed to hazardous working conditions
without adequate safety equipment, training, or emergency response protocols. This led
to immediate injuries and fatalities, as well as long-term health issues among survivors.
Violation: The right to safety and occupational health of workers, derived from Article
21, was compromised by COMPANY's negligence in ensuring workplace safety
standards. The lack of proper safety measures, including the functioning of safety
equipment like gas scrubbers and alarms, contributed to the severity of the gas leak and
its impacts on workers.
8. Also, Right to Redressal and Justice (Article 14 and Article 21) Impact: The victims
and survivors faced challenges in seeking justice, holding COMPANY and responsible
parties accountable, and receiving fair compensation and legal remedies for their losses
and suffering. Violation: The delays, legal complexities, and controversies surrounding
legal proceedings, including the settlement reached with COMPANY, undermined the
victims' right to redressal, equality before law (Article 14), and access to justice (Article
21). The lack of timely and transparent legal processes further compounded the trauma
and injustice experienced by the affected individuals and communities.
9. The legacy of the tragedy continues to underscore the importance of robust legal
frameworks, accountability mechanisms, public awareness, and international
cooperation in preventing industrial disasters and upholding fundamental rights in
disaster response and recovery efforts.
23
2024
10. In case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India& Ors. 2, also known as the Oleum Gas Leak
Case. The Oleum gas leak occurred at the Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries plant
in Delhi in 1985, resulting in the release of toxic gases. The incident highlighted
violations of the victims' right to life (Article 21) and right to health (Article 21).
Several workers and nearby residents suffered from respiratory issues, eye irritation,
and other health problems due to the gas leak.
11. In case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Subash Chand Kapoor & Ors.3 Background:
The fire at an Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) oil depot in Jaipur in 2009 led to a massive
explosion and release of toxic fumes. Violation of Fundamental Rights, The incident
highlighted violations of the victims' right to life (Article 21) and right to health (Article
21). The fire and toxic fumes resulted in casualties, injuries, and health issues among
residents living near the depot.
2
1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965
3
AIRONLINE 2019 P AND H 1256
24
2024
ISSUE 6. BY KEEPING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

CASE, WHETHER OTHER JUST-EQUITABLE AND FIT REMEDY CAN BE
PROVIDED?
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that other just-equitable and fit remedy
that can be provided.
2. These fundamental rights and the government's defenses highlight the complex legal,
ethical, and humanitarian dimensions of the tragedy and the efforts made to address its
aftermath and uphold the rights of the victims.
3. In addition to compensation and legal actions against responsible parties, courts can
provide various other remedies in the context of the tragedy that are:
4. Medical Rehabilitation: Courts can order comprehensive medical rehabilitation
programs for the victims, including access to specialized medical care, treatment for
gas-related health issues, rehabilitation services such as physical therapy, counseling
for psychological trauma, and ongoing monitoring of health conditions.
5. Environmental Remediation: Courts can mandate environmental remediation measures
to address the contamination caused by the gas leak, including soil and water pollution.
This may involve cleanup efforts, restoration of affected ecosystems, implementation
of pollution control measures in the vicinity of the plant site, and monitoring of
environmental quality.
6. Public Health Initiatives: Courts can direct the government and relevant authorities to
implement public health initiatives aimed at improving the overall health and well-
being of communities affected by the gas tragedy. This may include healthcare
infrastructure development, disease prevention programs, community health education,
and access to clean water and sanitation facilities.
7. Social Welfare Support: Courts can order social welfare measures to support the socio-
economic recovery of affected individuals and communities. This may involve
livelihood support programs, vocational training, job placement assistance, educational
opportunities for affected children, housing assistance for displaced families, and
support for vulnerable populations such as widows and orphans.
25
2024
8. Legal Reforms: Courts can recommend or require legal reforms to strengthen industrial
safety regulations, corporate accountability mechanisms, emergency response
protocols, and victim compensation frameworks. This may include amendments to
relevant laws, regulatory oversight improvements, and the establishment of specialized
courts or tribunals to handle cases related to industrial disasters.
9. Public Participation and Monitoring: Courts can facilitate public participation in
decision-making processes related to the Bhopal gas tragedy aftermath, including the
allocation of funds, implementation of remedial measures, and monitoring of
compliance with court orders. This may involve the appointment of independent
monitors, community representatives, and experts to oversee ongoing efforts and ensure
transparency.
10. International Cooperation: Courts can encourage or facilitate international cooperation
and assistance in addressing the consequences of the tragedy, such as collaboration with
global health organizations, environmental experts, and legal institutions to share
expertise, resources, and best practices.
11. These remedies go beyond financial compensation and legal accountability to address
the broader impacts of the tragedy on public health, environment, social welfare, and
governance. They aim to promote justice, recovery, and prevention of similar incidents
in the future.
26
2024
PRAYER
In light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the Petitioner most humbly
prays before the Hon’ble Court and declares:
1. That, the decision to allow FDI up to 100% in other sectors and up to 49% in Nuclear
Energy sector was unconstitutional.
2. That, the land acquisition carried into village Gudsridge was not valid.
3. That, the stipulation as to mandatory collaboration of RPC with INPCL and bypass of
the stages of Consenting Process agreed between Indistani government and RPC
violated Fundamental Rights of villagers of Gudsridge
4. That, the amount of compensation ordered by Claims Commissioner under Civil

Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 was not justifiable. And that, the High Court
had competence to quash the award declared by Claims Commission.
5. That, the entire incident of gas leakage did caused significant harm to fundamental
rights of victims
6. That, By keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, other just-equitable
and fit remedy can be provided.
AND/OR
Pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience, and for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall duty bound every pray.
All of which is humbly prayed,

Sd/- Counsel for the Petitioner
27

Memorial For Petitioner SNMC-02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Petitioner SNMC-02

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Memorial For Petitioner SNMC-02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAFFLES UNIVERSITY, NEEMRANA, RAJASTHAN

MOOT COURT, PRE- TRAIL PREPARATION AND PARTICIPATION IN TRIAL

ANNEXTURE- A (CIVIL LAW PROBLEM)

NAME- YUKTI BHARDWAJ

ROLL NO.- 19RU12005

SUBJECT- MOOT COURT EXERCISE & INTERNSHIP

SUBJECT CODE- LCP- IV

ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION DATE- 6TH MARCH, 2024

NAME AND DESIGNATION OF EXAMINATION IN- CHARGE-

DR. ROOPESH MALIK

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL, 2024

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RUNITIA

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DRAWN AND FILED

1. M.P.Jain — Indian Constitution Law Vol.1

2. Durga Das Basu— Introduction to The Constitution of Indistan

3. Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap — Constitution of India

4. A.V. Dicey — An Introduction to The Study of The Law of The

5. M. V. Pylee — India’s Constitution

II. LEGAL DATABASE

SL. NO. NAME

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

3. THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, 1976

SL.NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

5. AIR All IndistanReport

8. SCC Supreme Court Cases

9. SCR Supreme Court Report

10. Ors. Others

11. & And

12. Pg. Page

13. Anr. Another

14. Bom Bombay

(a) call for returns from such courts;

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETSFORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTION &

I. WHETHER THE DECISION TO ALLOW FDI UP TO 100% IN OTHER

II. WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION CARRIED INTO VILLAGE

III. WHETHER THE STIPULATION AS TO MANDATORY

IV. WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ORDERED BY

V. WHETHER THE ENTIRE INCIDENT OF GAS LEAKAGE CAUSED

VI. BY KEEPING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE DECISION TO ALLOW FDI UP TO 100% IN OTHER

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE LAND ACQUISITION CARRIED INTO VILLAGE

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE STIPULATION AS TO MANDATORY

 Identify potential sites based on technical feasibility, environmental

 Conduct site surveys, geological studies, and environmental impact assessments

 Obtain necessary clearances and approvals from regulatory authorities,

b. Design and Regulatory Approvals:

e. Obtain necessary licenses and permits for construction and operation.

a. Construction and Installation:

b. Build reactor buildings, turbine halls, cooling systems, electrical

c. Implement safety measures, quality control processes, and environmental

b. Commissioning and Operation:

a. Conduct pre-operational testing, system checks, and safety drills to ensure

c. Start commercial operation of the nuclear power plant, generating electricity

d. Regularly monitor and maintain plant systems, conduct safety inspections,

ISSUE 4. WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ORDERED BY CLAIMS

ISSUE 5: WHETHER THE ENTIRE INCIDENT OF GAS LEAKAGE CAUSED

ISSUE 6. BY KEEPING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

4. That, the amount of compensation ordered by Claims Commissioner under Civil