Moot 2 R

S, S, JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA
IN THE MATTER OF: -
NHRC .................................................................................................................... PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF LEYON ........................................................................................... RESPONDENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................... 3-4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... 5-6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 8-9
ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. 11-12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 13-30
I. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE?
II. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

PROJECT WITHOUT A PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
III. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE,

PRIOR, AND INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE INDI TRIBE BEFORE
APPROVING THE PROJECT?
IV. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT

AND THE BAN ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A
SCHEDULED TRIBE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND SCHEDULE V?
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................... 31
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
❖ CASES REFERRED
1. Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539
¶ 10, Guruvayur 2. Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7
SCC 546 ¶ 50, BALCO
3. Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
4. Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
5. . Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar
Union v. Union of India, (1981) ILLJ 193 SC; R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR
1981 SC 2138; G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153.
1
6. State of M.P. and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Other, (1986) 4 SCC 566
1
7. Sushila Devi v. Ramnandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177;
8. Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Sm. Deorajin, AIR 1960 SC 941;
9. Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457;
10. Deena Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155;
11. Yaro Khan v. Union of India, WP(C) 2599 of 2007
12. All India Labor Forum v. Union of India
13. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2001 AIR SCW 5135
14. Govt. of A.P v. A.P Jaiswal
15. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906
16. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery
17. L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India
18. State v. Green Power Corporation (2015)
19. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Environmental Advocacy Group
20. Crabci Kova - Nagymaros project (1997
21. Lafarage umiam mining pvt ltd .U.O.I
22. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I.
23. Sri T.N. Godvaram Thirumulpad v. U.O.I.
24. Damyanti v. UOI 1971
25. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Others
26. Binapani Paul case

4
▪
MUNICIPAL STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Const. of India, 1950.
2. The National Green Tribunal Act 2010
3. The L& acquisition act of 1986
4. The Inter-State Water Dispute Act
5. The Environment Protection Act 1986
6. The National Environment Policy
7. The Forest Rights Act, 2006
8. The Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act
9. The LARR Act, 2013
10. The RFCTLARR Act
11. The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act
12. The Scheduled castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
▪ INTERNATIONAL STAUTES
1. Un Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples

2. The Rio Declaration On Environment & Development
3. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention
4. World Bank

5
❖ BOOKS REFERRED
1. J.N. Pandey, Constitution of India, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, Fifty Fifth ed.
(2018).
2. Prof. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa
Publication, Nagpur, Sixth ed. (2011).
3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, Eleventh ed.
(2008).
❖ WEB SITES REFERRED

1. Advocatekhoj.com
2. Casemine.com
3. Constiutionofindia.net
4. Egazatte.nic.in
5. Indiankanoon.org
6. Latestlaws.com
7. Lawctopus.com
8. Legalservicesindia.com
9. Legislative.gov.in
10. Lexisnexis.com
11. Manupatra.in
12. Scconline.com
13. www.undp.org.in
14. www.uncsd2012.org
15. www.environmental-mainstreaming.org

6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
& And
Const. Constitution
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
No. Number
Ors. Others
p.no. Page Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
UOI Union of India
v. Versus

7
PIL Public Interest Litigation
NHRC National human rights commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EC Environmental Clearance
United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

UNDRIP Peoples
FRA Forest Rights Act
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
LARR Act, 2013
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
The Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes

SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
EPA environment protection act 1986

8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 321 of the Constitution of India. The respondents
have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in response to the petitions filed by the petitioners.
1
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
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution

9
SUMMARY OF FACT
1. Indus is a district in the state of Leyon, India, inhabited by the Indi tribe since ancient
times. The Indi people have a distinctive way of life and culture, often perceived as
"primitive" by general standards. They have resided in the area for generations,
maintaining their unique traditions and customs.
2. Little is known about the culture of the Indi tribe, who are listed in the Indian
Constitution's V Schedule as Scheduled Tribes. Members of the Indi tribe experience
low levels of integration with society, which breeds mistrust, alienation, and economic
and social exploitation.
3. A proposed hydroelectric project in the Indus district in 2011 threatened the Indi tribe
since it would flood around 80% of their inhabited territory. The Indi tribe voiced
serious objections to the project, citing worries about being uprooted from their primary
source of food and income. Their identity would be profoundly impacted and the
foundations of their culture would be endangered by the planned submergence.
4. A large chunk of the Indi tribe's inhabited land would be submerged as a result of the
proposed hydropower project in the Indus District, endangering several important
natural locations that are essential to their cultural and spiritual activities. The people's
strong opposition to the idea is exacerbated by this new dimension.
5. The Indi people objected to the government approving a project, arguing that they had
not been given the opportunity to freely, prior to, and inform themselves, in violation of
both domestic and international legal requirements.
6. The government increased police presence in the Indus area as a result of nonviolent
protests led by citizen groups like Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti.
7. The ISS Secretary, Mr. Mukesh, obtained public backing for the organization's initiative
and then solicited public funding via financial request letters.
8. Following an investigation of Mr. Mukesh's home and workplace by the authorities,
which turned up unaccounted money and letters requesting donations, the International
Skill Development Society (ISS) was deemed to be an unlawful organization.
9. The ISS filed a complaint alleging flagrant violations of human rights by the State
Government with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
10. Because of worries that funds that were not declared were being used to finance
opposition parties, the government of State LEYON has decided not to lift the embargo
on the International Space Station (ISS). A costly stop has been avoided by the
hydroelectric project, a flagship project that is vital to the area and has previously
undergone rehabilitation.

10
ISSUES RAISED
a. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?
b. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

PROJECT WITHOUT A PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
c. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE, PRIOR,
AND INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE INDI TRIBE BEFORE APPROVING THE
PROJECT?
d. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT AND
THE BAN ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A SCHEDULED
TRIBE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND SCHEDULE V?

11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?
The defendant’s suit is not maintanable as there is no violation of Fundamental Rights in the
present case. The respondent asserts that the petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the
petition, emphasizing that the alleged violations predominantly affect the Indi tribe, not the
petitioner directly.No one has been displaced, there has been no forceful assimilation and
nothing has been done to the environment. Hence when there is no damnus, the Petitioner
cannot seek a remedy. According to article 48-A of constitution of India , it is state’s duty to
protect and safeguard the environment and here also the state in the opinion that by constructing
dam will help providing much needed water and electricity to the whole of State. It will save
the state from the drought not only this generation but also save the future generation of indi
tribe.Article 2263 provides a concurrent jurisdiction to High Courts for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, and the petitioner should have exhausted these remedies before
approaching the Supreme Court directly.
2 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

.The counsel for the respondent has submitted to the honourable supreme court that the project
should not be halted as the requirements of the environmental impact assessment4 has been done
2Article 48A lays down the directive principle for protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and
wildlife.
3
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have
powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose (2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or
writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that
the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories (3) Where any party
against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any
proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all
documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an
application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a
period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so
furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next
day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the
expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated (4) The power conferred on a High
Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

12
4
the Environment Protection Act, 1986

13
by the government.The government did a preliminary survey of the proposed project area and in
this survey all the essentials related to the environmental impact assessment has been done by the
government of state of leyon and therefore the government gave approval to start the project.By
approving the hydroelectric project the government does its duty under article 48-A of the
constitution.Addition to this the government protects the right under Article 21 of the
constitution by preparing a detailed plan for rehabilitation of the displaced persons and allocated
sufficient funds for the same protect their livelihood.Moreover, it enhances regional
infrastructure and connectivity, promoting overall growth. Additionally, the project emphasizes
environmental sustainability, as hydroelectric power is considered a cleaner energy source with
reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional alternatives. land is taken for a
public purpose by following a reasonable procedure as provided in the Land acquisition Act.
3 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE, PRIOR,
PROJECT?
.It is submitted to the honourable supreme court of India that the government has obtained the
necessary free, prior, and informed consent from the indi tribe before approving the
project.before starting with the hydroelectric project the government of state of Leyon did a
preliminary survey of the proposed project area.Also in that survey government has taken the
free prior and informed consent of the affected area.According to schedule V5 the government
has the power to regulate the allotment of the land with the consent of the governor of the
state.The State holds the resource in a trust where the people are the beneficiaries and the state
is the trustee. This arrangement constitutes the ‘public trust doctrine’.As per the provisions of
the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007,the government, before approving
the project, had thought of the welfare of public at large as well as of the tribal population and
thus followed the procedure as demanded under the Constitution of India.
4 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT AND

THE BAN ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A SCHEDULED
TRIBE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND SCHEDULE V?
The counsel of the respondent has submitted before the honourable supreme court that the allegations
made by the government over the ISS and the decision of banning it is valid, and that no rights of the
Indi tribe have been violated. Article 19(1)(b)6 guarantees to the citizen of India the Right to assemble
peaceably and without arms i.e. Right to Protest but this right is also not absolute and reasonable
restriction can be imposed on this right in the interest of Public order, and sovereignty and integrity of
India and this power is given to the state through Article 19(3)7 but,In the present case, the association so
formed aimed at disturbing the public order and it also created a feeling of distrust among the people
against the government.Section35 grants the government the authority to declare an association as
unlawful. The respondent asserts that the ban on ISS is a lawful exercise of the government's power
under THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT8, 1967 and other several acts
5
FIFTH SCHEDULE [Article 244(1)] Provisions as to the Administration and Control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes
6 to assemble peaceably and without arms;
7Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from
making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right conferred by the said sub clause
8
THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT8, 1967
14
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE?
A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of
Fundamental Rights9, as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution.10
In the present case, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action taken
by the State was in furtherance of the principle of economic and social justice and thus cannot
betermed as arbitrary or as one which was without the application of the mind.
1.1. Whether the present writ petition has been filed prematurely
The respondent submits that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of Fundamental
Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 3211.
The petitioner is raising a mere scholarly objection, without any locus standi. The respondent
asserts that the petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the petition, emphasizing that the
alleged violations predominantly affect the Indi tribe, not the petitioner directly. While the
petitioner claims a public interest angle, the respondent contends that the petitioner is not an
aggrieved party and thus cannot represent the tribe's collective grievances. The principles of
locus standi require a direct personal interest, which the petitioner fails to establish.
No one has been displaced, there has been no forceful assimilation and nothing has been done
to the environment. Hence when there is no damnus, the Petitioner cannot seek a remedy.
For the government of State LEYON, the Hydroelectric Project is its flagship project aimed at
providing much needed water and electricity to the whole of State LEYON as well as its
neighbouring States. The government of state of Leyon has already invested a substantial
amount of its annual budget in this project; halting the project at this point will result in
substantial cost escalation. After its preliminary survey of the project area, the government of
State LEYON has already prepared a detailed plan for rehabilitation of the displaced persons
9
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
10
Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539 ¶ 10, Guruvayur
Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546 ¶ 50, BALCO Employees Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
11
Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124

15
and allocated sufficient funds for the same.12
1.1 Whether the principle of Res judicata Applies In The Present Case
According to article 48-A of constitution of India , it is state’s duty to protect and safeguard
the environment and here also the state in the opinion that by constructing dam will help
providing much needed water and electricity to the whole of State. It will save the state from
the drought not only this generation but also save the future generation of indi tribe.
So by approving the hydroelectric project the government does its duty under article 48-A of
the constitution. Addition to this the government protects the right under Article 21 of the
constitution by preparing a detailed plan for rehabilitation of the displaced persons and
allocated sufficient funds for the same protect their livelihood.
The respondent maintains the applicability of the maxim, interest reipublicae ut sit finis
litium13. This fundamental maxim is the basis for the conception of Res judicata, as also the
principle of Judicial Infallibility. In addition, Res judicata pro veritate occipitur, or a judicial
decision must be accepted as correct.14 In Govt. of A.P v. A.P Jaiswal, the court observed
the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.15 It was this Hon’ble court’s order to take
alternative steps to solve the power crisis in the country16. Moreover, when this matter has
already been dealt in All India Labor Forum v. Union of India17 , thus principle of Res
Judicata is applicable here. Therefore the respondents submit that the petition is not
maintainable.
1.2 Whether this honourable court would be justified in interfering with a policy decision
The respondent most humbly submits that the Supreme Court has long held that interference
into policy actions is not within the its jurisdiction18as reiterated in the recent Iodine Salt
12
Moot problem para 11
13
“In the interest of the state, there should be an end to litigation.”
14
Mulla, Code Of Civil Procedure 69 (14thed, 2004)
15
Appeal (civil) 4799-4844 of 1997; “Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is
consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without respect to
the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements; the courts have evolved the
rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. These rules and principles are based on public policy and if these
are not followed by courts then there will be chaos in the administration of justice.”
16
Page 5 of 9 ANNEXURE A ¶3 sub clause b
17
[W P No: xx/2012 dated xx/2012]
18
Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) 1892 of 2007 “This Court in a
series of decisions has reiterated that courts should not rush in where even scientists and medical experts are
careful to tread. The rule of prudence is that courts will be reluctant to interfere with policy decisions taken by the
Government, in matters of public health, after collecting and analysing inputs from surveys and research… The
scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. Courts cannot interfere with policy
eitheron the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.
Legality ofthe policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.

16
Case19.It has been held that a writ petition cannot be maintainable if its sole purpose is to
question a policydecision of the Government20. The position of law on the matter of policy
decisions is quiteclear, from decisions such as BALCO Employees Union21, and a host of other
cases. The list is truly extensive22, as the underlying principle is sound in law. Unless there is
prima facie evidence to prove that exercise of discretion has been arbitrary, unreasonable or
mala fide, the Court cannot step into the shoes of the Government to decide the validity of a
policy23. It is a matter of public policy that the Court not permit litigations on the same issue be
raised in perpetuity24, as no public undertaking will ever succeed if such a practice is
encouraged. Thus, the policy decision of the Government regarding the uranium project cannot
be questioned before the court of law.
1.3 Alternative remedy has not been exhausted

The State contends that alternative remedies are available to address the grievances raised by
the petitioner. The Indi tribe, through their representatives or recognized tribal bodies, could
have initially sought relief through local or district courts, or through the State's administrative
mechanisms. Article 226 provides a concurrent jurisdiction to High Courts for the enforcement
of fundamental rights, and the petitioner should have exhausted these remedies before
approaching the Supreme Court directly.
The tribunals are competent enough to hear this particular case by the virtue of L.
Chandrakumar V. Union of India25. Alternative remedy is a bar unless there was complete lack
of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned26, however, the existence of a
19
Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India, WP(C) 80 of 2006, 4 July 2011
20
Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. v.A.P. Health, Medical, Housing and
Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd. and Anr., 2002 (2) ALD 609 “It is the policy of the Government
and the Corporation to procure and distribute drugs supplied by the manufacturers with WHO GMP, and a writ
petition is not maintainable to question the policy decision. The decision is not arbitrary and irrational… It is
evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to
embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be
evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been
urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical”
21
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2001 AIR SCW 5135 “It was submitted … that the wisdom
and advisability of economic policies of Government are not amenable to judicial review. It is not for Courts to
consider the relative merits of different economic policies. Court is not the Forum for resolving the conflicting
clauses regarding the wisdom or advisability of policy..”
22
SC. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India,
(1981) ILLJ 193 SC; R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138; G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal
Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153.
23
State of M.P. and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Other, (1986) 4 SCC 566
24
Sushila Devi v. Ramnandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177; Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Sm. Deorajin, AIR 1960 SC 941;
Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457; Deena Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155; Yaro Khan v.
Union of India, WP(C) 2599 of 2007
25
AIR1997SC1125 ¶ 94
26
A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906

17
competent body27 to hear this particular case questions the maintainability of the writ petition
filed. It was held this Hon’ble apex court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson
Hosiery28 where there is alternative statutory remedy court should not interfere unless the
alternative remedy is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, the respondents humbly
submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy
has not been exhausted.
Thus, the respondents submit that the present writ petition in not maintainable for the aforesaid
reasons.
27
National Green Tribunal Act 2010
28
AIR 1979 SC 1889

18
2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC
It is humbly submitted to the honourable supreme court that the project should not be halted as
the requirements of the environmental impact assessment29 has been done by the government .
The respondent contends that the requirements given under the environmental impact
assessment notification of 202030 of section 7 are as follows
Section 7 states the Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) Process for New
Projects:- The environmental clearance process for new projects will comprise of a maximum
of four stages. These four stages in sequential order are:
• Stage (1) Screening
• Stage (2) Scoping
• Stage (3) Public Consultation
• Stage (4) Appraisal
And all these requirements have been followed by the government, the government did a
preliminary survey of the proposed project area and in this survey all the essentials related to
the environmental impact assessment has been done by the government of state of leyon and
therefore the government gave approval to start the project.
According to article 48-A31 of constitution of India , it is state’s duty to protect and safeguard
the environment and here also the state in the opinion that by constructing dam will help
providing much needed water and electricity to the whole of State. It will save the state from
the drought not only this generation but also save the future generation of indi tribe.
So by approving the hydroelectric project the government does its duty under article 48-A of
the constitution. Addition to this the government protects the right under Article 21 of the
constitution by preparing a detailed plan for rehabilitation of the displaced persons and
allocated sufficient funds for the same protect their livelihood.
Further to this, in the case of M J Builders v. Radhey shyam & Ors32 It was ruled that the
state is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and
enjoyment.
Here in the case of state of Leyon, the government is also doing its duty to protect the
environment by constructing the dams. Because the state is in the opinion that the accumulation
of water in the dams will helps to recouping the underground water level in the state. It will be
beneficial for future generations also.
For the government of State LEYON, the Hydroelectric Project is its flagship project aimed at
providing much needed water and electricity to the whole of State LEYON as well as its
neighbouring States. It has already invested a substantial amount of its annual budget in this
project; halting the project at this point will result in substantial cost escalation. After its
29
the environmental impact assessment 2020
30
environmental impact assessment notification of 2020
31
supra
32
AIR 1999 SC 2468

19
preliminary survey of the project area, the government of State LEYON has already prepared a
detailed plan for rehabilitation of the displaced persons and allocated sufficient funds for the
same. Hence, State LEYON is not willing to halt the project at this stage.33
The proposed project will also going to give several benefits to the state and the people of
LEYON in a multidimensional way.
Firstly, the project contributes significantly to the national energy grid, addressing the growing
demand for electricity. This aligns with the government's commitment to providing sustainable
and reliable energy sources.
Secondly, the hydroelectric project fosters economic development by creating employment
opportunities during construction and operation phases. Moreover, it enhances regional
infrastructure and connectivity, promoting overall growth. Additionally, the project emphasizes
environmental sustainability, as hydroelectric power is considered a cleaner energy source with
reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional alternatives.
Thus, the respondent contends that the benefits, including energy security, economic growth,
and environmental responsibility, outweigh the concerns raised by the petitioners and support
the project's continuation.
It is submitted for the requirement of public consultation has been satisfied in the
instant case. The EIA Notification specifies that a public hearing must be conducted for the
purpose of ascertaining concerns of all local affected persons.34 The preliminary survey
conducted by the government also includes the public consultation of that particular area.
The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole
prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment
and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development
and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures.35
The doctrine of Eminent domain, in its general meaning, means the supreme power of the
government under which property of any individual can be taken over in the concern of the
general public. So the power to take property from the individual is rooted in the idea eminent
domain. The doctrine of eminent domain states, the sovereign can do anything, if the
act of sovereign involves public interest.
New Riviera corporative housing society v. special land acquisition officer36. Hence here court
held that if land is taken for a public purpose by following a reasonable procedure as
provided in the Land acquisition Act, it will not be volative of Art 21 of the Constitution.
Procedure Established by Law It means that a law that is duly enacted by the legislature or the
concerned body is valid if it has followed the correct procedure. Following this doctrine means
that, a person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty according to the procedure
established by law. So, if Parliament passes a law which is not violative of article 1337 then the
33
Moot problem para 11
34
EIA NOTIFICATION OF 2006
35
https://thewire.in/environment/supreme-court-central-vista-parliament-environment-law
36
New Reviera Coop. Housing Society and Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (04.12.1995 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1046/1996
37
Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void

20
life or personal liberty of a person can be taken off according to the provisions and procedures
of that law. Procedure established by law means a law duly enacted which is not in violation of
the constitution is valid even if it deprives citizens principles of justice and equity
Here in the case of state of Leyon, the government is also doing its duty to protect the
environment by constructing the dams. Because the state is in the opinion that the accumulation
of water in the dams will helps to recouping the underground water level in the state. It will be
beneficial for future generations also.
Section 238 of land acquisition act of 1986 39, provides clear definitions for terms such as
"public purpose" and "affected families." The term "public purpose" defines the legitimate
reasons for which the government can acquire land, ensuring transparency and accountability in
the acquisition process. Additionally, the definition of "affected families" outlines the scope of
individuals who may experience displacement due to the project. The clarity provided by
Section 2 helps in determining the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act to the proposed
hydroelectric project and ensures a standardized interpretation of key terms throughout the legal
framework. This section forms the foundation for addressing concerns related to the
justification and scope of land acquisition for the project.
Article 300A40 emphasizes the constitutional safeguards in place when it comes to property
rights. The government can contend that the land acquisition process adheres to these
safeguards, ensuring fairness and due process. Any disputes related to compensation or
rehabilitation can be resolved through legal mechanisms, upholding the principles enshrined in
Article 300A. the hydroelectric project serves a significant public purpose, such as providing
water and electricity to the entire State. Article 300A, while protecting property rights, allows
for a fair balance between individual rights and the broader public interest.
The State invokes Article 26241 of the Constitution, emphasizing that matters related to water
distribution are subject to parliamentary legislation. As the hydroelectric project involves
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in
contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by
Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not
previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in
particular areas
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368 Right of Equality
38
the expression “public purpose” includes-
(i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village-sites;
(ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning;
(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy
of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with
the object of securing further development as planned;
(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State;
39
land acquisition act of 1986
40
no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a
citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
41
Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter State rivers or river valleys
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or
control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any
other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause ( 1 ) Co ordination
between States

21
water-related concerns, the Parliament-enacted Inter-State Water Dispute Act 42, provides the
exclusive mechanism for adjudication, thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32.
Entry number 18 of state list states as mentioned in schedule 6 43 that as follows
‘Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and
tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land
improvement and agricultural loans’
The counsel pleads that construction of the hydro electric project is for a public purpose and it
includes the welfare of people on a major level. In no manner shall it breach the welfare of the
people as well as the biodiversity hence it is pleaded that all the requirements of the
environment impact assessment notification passed by the government in 2006 have been
followed by the government.
42
Inter-State Water Dispute Act 1956
43

22
3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE, PRIOR,
PROJECT?
It is submitted to the honourable supreme court of India that the government has obtained the
necessary free, prior, and informed consent from the indi tribe before approving the project. It
is to inform that before starting with the hydroelectric project the government of state of Leyon
did a preliminary survey of the proposed project area and then it gave approval to start the
project. Also in that survey government has taken the free prior and informed consent of the
affected area.
According to schedule V the government has the power to regulate the allotment of the land
with the consent of the governor of the state.
The State holds the resource in a trust where the people are the beneficiaries and the state is the
trustee. This arrangement constitutes the ‘public trust doctrine’.This doctrine enjoins upon the
state the responsibility to utilize resources only for the general public and not for private or
commercial purposes. The applicability of this doctrine has in fact been accepted in India
through judicial decisions.
In India, land acquisition is based on the doctrine of ‘eminent domain’, which is similar to the
public trust doctrine. The doctrine of eminent domain provides that the State has an overarching
control over the land, and in this regard, it is guided by two principles: salus populi est suprema
lex, meaning that the welfare of the people is the most important; and necessitas publica est
major quam private, meaning that public necessity is greater than private necessity.
According to article 244 and schedule V of the constitution of India emphasize that the
government's actions are in line with constitutional provisions regarding the administration and
control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes, ensuring the welfare of the tribal population.
The government, before approving the project, had thought of the welfare of public at large as
well as of the tribal population and thus followed the procedure as demanded under the
Constitution of India. All the constitutional provisions and procedures regarding the
administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes were kept in consideration
before approving the same.
The government has a comprehensive policy for the rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced
persons, including the Indi tribe, showcasing concern for their well-being. As per the provisions
of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007.
The government, keeping in mind the welfare of Indi people, has developed a rehabilitation
plan for them. As well as, the government empathizes them and thus has also thought of
occupational opportunities for the people.
Sri T.N. Godvaram Thirumulpad v. U.O.I.44 In this case, the SC verdict has recognized the
need to balance development with environmental concern
The significance of the hydro-electric project in contributing to the overall development and
welfare of the region, aligning with the goals outlined in the National Mineral Policy 2019.
The government is of the idea that once the hydroelectric project will be completed, it will
minimize the issues related to the scarcity of water, electricity and development in that
particular area; which simultaneously benefit the whole State of Leyon.
44 WA No. 56 of 2010

23
M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I.45 Hydroelectric project is crucial for meeting the water and electricity
needs for the entire states ensuring the effective utilization of natural resources.
The hydroelectric project will resolve the issues and it will prove to be a beneficiary for public
at large.
Lafarage umiam mining pvt ltd .U.O.I.46 In this case , SC acknowledge the importance of
public participation in environmental decision making.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 Highlight provisions related to fair compensation, rehabilitation, and
resettlement, demonstrating the government's commitment to the welfare of affected
communities.
While keeping this Act in mind, the government ensures the proper rehabilitation and
resettlement of the affected communities and also will provide them with basic amenities for
settling in the new environment.
Crabci Kova - Nagymaros project (1997)47 The states have the right to engage in project for
the benefits of their citizen even if involves some impact on the environmental or indigenous
community.
As per the land acquisitions act
Section 6 Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. After considering objections,
the government makes a formal declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose. This
emphasizes the importance of justifying the acquisition in the interest of the public, including
the affected indigenous community.
Section 8 Land to be marked out, measured, and planned. Before acquiring possession, the land
is marked out and measured. This ensures transparency in the process and it is linked to the idea
of informed consent, as the affected parties are made aware of the extent of the land to be
acquired.
Here also government has taken the consent and then makes a proper plan on how to make a
hydroelectric project.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act48, 2013 Highlight provisions related to fair compensation, rehabilitation, and
resettlement, demonstrating the government's commitment to the welfare of affected
communities.
Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Environmental Advocacy Group49 (2012)
Relevance: This case showcases how the court recognized the regulatory authority's role in
approving energy projects and balancing the need for power generation with environmental
45
AIR 1987
46
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 of 1995
47
Crabci Kova - Nagymaros project 1997
48
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act48, 2013
49
Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Environmental Advocacy Group49 (2012)

24
considerations. State v. Green Power Corporation50 (2015),This case illustrates a situation
where the court upheld the government's decision to pursue a hydro-electric project in the
public interest, emphasizing the need for energy and overall development.
Thus, it is concluded before the honourable apex court that the government has approved the
hydroelectric project after the due consent of the Indi tribe people and that it has been approved
keeping in mind the purpose of public welfare and that this project, once completed, will prove
to be highly beneficial to the whole State of Leyon including the Indi tribe people.
50
State v. Green Power Corporation50 (2015)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

25
4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT
AND THE BAN ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A
SCHEDULED TRIBE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND SCHEDULE V?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable supreme court that the allegations made by the
government over the ISS and the decision of banning it is valid, and that no rights of the Indi
tribe have been violated.
In Damyanti v. UOI51 1971[12] The Supreme Court held that The right to form an association,
the Court said:
Necessarily 'implies that the person forming the association has also the right to continue to be
associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law by which
members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the
members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have
voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees to the citizen of India the Right to assemble peaceably and without
arms i.e. Right to Protest but this right is also not absolute and reasonable restriction can be
imposed on this right in the interest of Public order, and sovereignty and integrity of India and
this power is given to the state through Article 19(3)
In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Others52[2], the Supreme
Court had ruled that:
"Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest that cannot be taken away
by an arbitrary executive or legislative action".
But, In the present case, the association so formed aimed at disturbing the public order and it
also created a feeling of distrust among the people against the government, which is not
appropriate.
The Act defines unlawful activities, prescribes penalties for involvement, and grants the
government authority to declare associations as unlawful. While essential for national security,
the Act prompts ongoing discussions on striking a balance between security imperatives and
individual liberties.
(o) “unlawful activity”, in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by
such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),
Section 3 - Punishment for Being a Member of an Unlawful Association: The ISS members
were involved in unlawful activities and hence Section 3 becomes relevant. The counsel asserts
that the ban is a preventive measure to avoid individuals participating in activities that are
punishable under this section.
Section 8 - Punishment for Conspiracy, etc., to Commit Certain Offenses: The government has
51
In Damyanti v. UOI51 1971
52
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Others
53

26
evidence of conspiracies by ISS members, the unauthorised money that was found along with
donation request letters is a big evidence. The respondent by citing this section, supports the
contention that the ISS was involved in activities that warrant punishment under the Act.
Section 13 - Punishment for Unlawful Activities: This section provides for punishment related
to unlawful activities. The respondent refers to Section 13 to highlight the legal consequences
for those engaging in activities deemed unlawful under the Act, justifying the ban.
Section 35 - Power to Declare an Association Unlawful: Section 35 grants the government the
authority to declare an association as unlawful. The respondent asserts that the ban on ISS is a
lawful exercise of the government's power under the Act, based on the organization's alleged
involvement in unlawful activities.
Section 36 - Effect of Declaration: Section 36 outlines the legal effects of declaring an
association as unlawful. The respondent emphasizes that the ban not only serves as a preventive
measure but also triggers legal consequences, including restrictions on the activities of the
banned organization.
Thus, the counsel submits that the ISS is involved in some unlawful activities.
Alleged Involvement of ISS in Benami Transactions as a Ground for Ban
During the police raid on Mr. Mukesh, the Secretary of the ISS, unaccounted money amounting
to Rs. 90,000/- was found. The government declared the ISS as an illegal organization, and this
declaration is a point of contention. One of the reasons cited by the government for the ban is
the alleged involvement of ISS in benami transactions.
1. Benami Transactions Act, 1988:
As defined in Section2(a) of the Act "benami transaction" means any transaction in which
property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by any other person."
A transaction must, therefore, be benami irrespective of its date or duration.
Section 3, subject to the exceptions, states that no person shall enter into any benami
transaction. This section obviously cannot have retrospective operation.
However, Section4 clearly provides that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect
of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against
any other person shall lie, by or on behalf of a person claiming to be real owner of such
property. This naturally relates to past transactions as well. The expression "any property held
benami" is not limited to any particular time, date or duration.
Once the property is found to have been held benami, no suit, claim or action to enforce any
right in respect thereof shall lie.
Similarly, sub-section (2) of section 4 nullifies the defences based on any right in respect of
any property held benami whether against the person in whose name the property is held or
against any other person in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be
the real owner of such property.
The alleged unaccounted money found during the raid is directly connected to the benami
transactions. Mr. Mukesh allegedly collected the money from people in the name of supporting
the Indi tribe.
The government's decision to ban the ISS is justified and legal in the ambit of the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

27
Section 3 of the Act prohibits benami transactions and the sub-section (3) provides that-
(3) Whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
Binapani Paul case54 , Hon’ble Supreme Court again had an occasion to consider the nature of
benami transactions. After considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point, this
Court in that judgment observed and held that the source of money had never been the sole
consideration. It is merely one of the relevant considerations but not determinative in character.
This Court ultimately concluded after considering its earlier judgment in the case of (Binapani
Paul case 55) (2004) 7 SCC 233 that while considering whether a particular transaction is
benami in nature, the following six circumstances can be taken as a guide:
“(1) the source from which the purchase money came;
(2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase;
(3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;
(4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged
benamidar;
(5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale;
and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.
Mr. Mukesh, while collecting the money, failed to fulfill the guides as the money was collected
from the local people. He had a motive of forming more associations that would work against
the government. And there was no idea to help the Indi people but to encourage hate and
distrust among people against the government.
BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND
IMPOSITION OF TAX ACT56, 2015[22 OF 2015]
An Act to make provisions to deal with the problem of the black money that is undisclosed
foreign income and assets, the procedure for dealing with such income and assets and to
provide for imposition of tax on any undisclosed foreign income and asset held outside India
and for matters connected therewith or incidental.
Tax Treatment of Cash Credits
As per, Section68, any sum found credited in the books of a taxpayer, for which he offers no
explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the
opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, may be charged to income-tax as the income of
the taxpayer of that year.
Section69A- Unexplained money, etc.
Where in any year the taxpayer is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or
54
Appeal (civil) 8098 of 2004
55
Appeal (civil) 8098 of 2004
56
BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX ACT56,
2015[22 OF 2015]

28
other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in
the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the taxpayer
offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion,
jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the
Assessing Officer, satisfactory, than the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other
valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the taxpayer for such year.
The unaccounted money this termed to be black money in name of Mr. Mukesh.
Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution provides for the imposition of reasonable restrictions
on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a). These restrictions are deemed necessary in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an
offense.
Here are the specific grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) that allow the imposition of
reasonable restrictions.
Article 51A the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen “to safeguard public
property and to abjure violence”.
The acts of Mr. Mukesh and that of ISS clearly indicates that the protest was not peaceful and
that if it would have continued it might had incited the people against the government and it
would have resulted in public disorder which could destroy the peace and harmony of the state.
By considering all the above mentioned facts, the counsel submits that the ban on ISS, due to
all the mentioned reasons, was justified and that the government, in favour of public harmony
and to maintain public order, had imposed that ban.

29
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised herein above, arguments advanced and authorities relied upon, the
counsel for the Respondent humbly pray before this Hon’ble Supreme Court to kindly adjudge
and be pleased to declare and/or issue:
A. The Writ Petition Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
B. Affirmation of the environmental impact assessment conducted by the Respondent,
asserting its compliance with statutory provisions and ensuring the project's continuity for
the greater public welfare.
C. The government obtained the necessary free, prior, and informed consent from the Indi
tribe before approving the project
D. The government's action, including the project and the ban on ISS, does not violate the
rights of the Indi tribe as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution and Schedule V.
And pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit
in the best interests of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience for this act of kindness,
the Respondent shall duty bound forever Pray.
All of which respect is submitted counsels for the Respondent.

Moot 2 R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot 2 R

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

Moot 2 R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S, S, JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA

IN THE MATTER OF: -

NHRC .................................................................................................................... PETITIONER

STATE OF LEYON ........................................................................................... RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................... 3-4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... 5-6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 8-9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. 11-12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 13-30

I. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

II. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

III. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE,

IV. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................... 31

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Un Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

❖ WEB SITES REFERRED

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

AIR All India Reporter

p.no. Page Number

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

PIL Public Interest Litigation

NHRC National human rights commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

FRA Forest Rights Act

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

The Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes

EPA environment protection act 1986

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

a. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

b. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

2 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT AND

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1.3 Alternative remedy has not been exhausted

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT