P a g e |1

2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2021

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

SAVE BLUE & OTHERS……….…………….……………………...PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF SINDIA. …………….……….………………………. RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION
JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |2
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
TABLE OFCONTENTS
1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES_______________________________________2
1.1. ARTICLES AND JOURNALS__________________________________2
1.2. BOOKS_____________________________________________________3
1.3. CASE LAWS________________________________________________3
1.3.1. INDIAN CASES________________________________________3
1.3.2. FOREIGN CASES______________________________________4
1.4. DICTIONARIES_____________________________________________4
1.5.STATUTES__________________________________________________4
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION_________________________________5
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS_________________________________________5
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES________________________________________6
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS____________________________________6
6. WRITTEN PLEADING___________________________________________8
7. PRAYERS_____________________________________________________26
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ARTICLES AND JOURNALS:
1. B.R.Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates On 9 December, 1948, Constituent
Assembly of India debates - 164.100.47.194.
2. A Patel, Petitioner and Member, Asim Barman Committee, in discussion with the
author, Bangalore, 13 September 2004 and Delhi, 6 February 2007
3. Bernie R. Tershy, Kuo-Wei Shen, Kelly M. Newton, Nick D. Holmes, Donald A. Croll,
The Importance of Islands for the Protection of Biological and Linguistic Diversity,
BioScience, Volume 65, Issue 6, June 2015, Pages 592–597,
4. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity, Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics Vol. 34:487-515 (Volume publication date November 2003),
First published online as a Review in Advance on August 14, 2003,
5. Colin G. Scanes,Chapter 19 - Human Activity and Habitat Loss: Destruction,
Fragmentation, and Degradation, Animals and Human Society,Academic
Press,2018,Pages 451-482,
6. A. Wilkinson, David; C. Marshall, Jonathan; P. French, Nigel; T. S. Hayman, David
(2018): Supplementary material from "Habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the
risk of novel infectious disease emergence". The Royal Society. Collection.
7. Burrows, Ruain & Walkington, I. & Wolf, Judith. (2009). Environmental impacts of
tidal power schemes. Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers-maritime
Engineering - PROC INST CIVIL ENG-MARIT ENG. 162. 165-177.
8. Mafi-Gholami, Davood. (2016). An Overview on Role of Mangroves in Mitigating
Coastal Disasters (With Special Focus on Tsunamis, Floods and Cyclones).
9. Ishan Kukreti, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification: What development are we
clearing our coasts for, DownToEarth

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |3
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
10. CM Jairwala, Complex Enviro-Techno Science Issues: Judicial direction, (January-
March 2000) 42 JILI 29
11. Soumitra Ghosh, Compensatory afforestation, Economic and Political Weekly 2017
Vol.52 No.38 pp. unpaginated, ISSN: 0012-9976
12. La - about Us. CFR. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2021, from
http://www.cfrla.org.in/about.html
13. Trivedi, K. (2020). Community Forest Rights At a Glance 2017-2020. Community
Forest RightsLearning and Advocacy Process, Oxfam India and Kalpavriksh.
14. Who are the indigenous and tribal peoples, (2016, July 22), ), Retrieved October 30,
2021, from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenous-tribal/WCMS_503321/lang--
en/index.htm?

BOOKS:
1. Durga Das Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India 3771(8TH Ed., Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2008).
2. Environmental Law , S.C.Shastri, 5th Edition
3. Dicey, Law of the Constitution, (10th ed.)

CASE LAWS: INDIAN

1. A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly) v. Union of India, 1981 SC 298
2. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1473
3. Rural litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P, 1989 SC 594
4. Vardhichand v. Ratlam Muncipal Council, 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
5. People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993
Cal. 215 at 228
6. Samaj Parivartan Samyudaya v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2013 SC 3217
7. State of H.P v. Students’ parent, 1985 SC 910(para. 5)
8. Shenoy v. Udipi Municipality,1974 SC 2177
9. S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India,AIR 1982 SC 149
10. Subhash v. State of Bihar,1991 SC 420
11. Fertilizer Corporaton Kamgar Union v.UOI,AIR 1981 SC 344
12. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M|S Abdulbhai Faizullabha,AIR 1976 SC 1455
13. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892(para. 64)
14. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, AIR 2010 SC 2551
15. Sukhdev and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1331
16. Intellectuals forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549
17. M.C.Mehta v. UOI, (2009) 6 SCC 142
18. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5387
of 2014
19. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath,(2000) 6 SCC 213
20. Charan Lal Sahu Etc. v. UOI,1990 AIR 1480,1989 SC Supl. (2) 597
21. M.C. Mehta v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 395; AIR 1987 SC 1086
22. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. UOI, (1995) 3 SCC 42
23. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI; AIR 2012 SC 1254
24. Centre for environmental law, World Wild Fund-India v. UOI,(2013) 8 SCC
234
25. T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Copn. of Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |4
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
26. A.P. State Fishermen Development and Welfare Assn. v. District Collector,
2010(2) ALD 300
27. N.D. Jayal v. UOI, (2004)9 SCC 362; AIR 2004 SC 867
28. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 7464
29. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath
Nandkarni, 1983 AIR 109, 1983 SCR(1) 828
30. Olga Tellis v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation,1986 AIR 180
31. MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/S ZY,AIR
(1996)1234;(1996)SCC(1)74
32. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. v. Friends Coop. Housing ,1996 AIR
114
33. Chameli Singh v. State of UP,1996 AIR 1051, 1995(6)Suppl. SCR 827,
34. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR (1990) SC 630
35. Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment &Forest & Ors., Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011
36. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3297
37. Sooraram Reddy v. Gatherer, (2008) 9 SCC 552
38. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299
39. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,1952 AIR 75,1952 SCR 284
40. K. Thimmappa v. Chairman Central Board of Directors, SBI;(2001)2 SCC 259
41. Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP,(1991) 1 SCC 212
42. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.,1981 AIR 487,1981 SCR (2)79
43. Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1975 SC 1436;(1976) 1 SCC 682
44. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,1974 AIR 555
45. Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P.,1974 AIR 1232,1974 SCR (3) 624
46. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,(1994)3 SCC 569
47. K.A. Abbas v. UOI,1971 AIR 481, 1971 SCR(2) 446
48. Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. State of Punjab &Ors.,1969 AIR 1100, 1
49. B. Rama Raju v. UOI, 2011 SCC Online AP 152
50. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras,1950 AIR 124
51. A.K. Roy Etc. v. UOI and Anr.,1982 AIR 710
52. State of UP v. Renusagar Power Co.,1988 AIR 1737,1988 SCR Supl.(1)627
53. KSEB v.Indian Aluminium Co.,1976 AIR 1031,1976 SCR (1)552
54. Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Assn. v.UOI and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 334
55. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. UOI, 1990 AIR 1277, 1990 SCR (1)909

CASE LAWS: FOREIGN

1. Connally v. General Constr. Co.., 269 U.S.385, 391(1926)
2. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S.104, 108-109(1972)

DICTIONARIES
1. MerriamWebster, Web Dictionary

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006
3. Environmental Protection Act, 1986

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |5
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA INVOKING THE WRIT
JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUITION OF SINDIA.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Sindia which reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part : (1) The right to move the
Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Union of Sindia is the second largest growing economy and the youngest nation in
the world. They adopted 17 sustainable development goals in 2015 and thereby in
collaboration with the UNDP 3 projects were implemented since 2015.
Hamantha is a group of islands which is a Union Territory. The island has largest coral
belt and mangroves. The island has a population of 4 lakhs and is home to six indigenous
tribes in the world. The islander’s primary occupation is tourism and fishing with little
agriculture. Since 2010 the island witnessed large number of plastic deposit and several
aquatic creatures were found dead in the sea shore. Due to the crocodile attack on 2 nd
April 2018 Govt. issued an order restricting fishing in areas for local fishing communities.
In 2018 when the national democratic party came to power changes to the coastal zone
regulation were anticipated to affect the island and after all procedures the CRZ 2019
duly came into effect in January 2019.
2.5 A CRZ V and 5.4.1 were the regulations which made pertaining to Hamantha island.
In October 2019 the government launched an ocean power project in Sabath Island
wherein 10 coastal villages were to be taken up & given rehabilitation including 2 villages
of native tribes. In November 2019 Emerald Island project was launched in Gala & Hatten
Island and they were de-notified from No development Zone & 10 meter limit was

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |6
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
prescribed from HTL& bidding were invited for setting resort in the islands. The
government also sanctioned a 3 km bridge to connect the Tara Island with South
Hamantha. On January 2020 protests were started against CRZ regulations. On January
1 2021 the Island Coastal Regulation Zone was reduced, the construction work can now
be carried out till 20 meters from HTL. Underwater construction by resorts were
permitted. Many projects were hidden from public view which endangers the forests,
tribal reserves & coastal areas of the islands. CRZ 2019 is a threat to life of local people,
indigenous tribes, flora and fauna. Save Blue is an organization by native people which
oppose the CRZ for the island. Save Blue filed a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning
the validity of the provision 2.5 A and 5.4.1 Regulation of the CRZ 2019.They stated that
the projects will cause irreversible damage to the unique biodiversity and fragile
ecosystems, with little hope for the islanders to benefit from the development plans.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE
OF SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE?
2. WHETHER THE PROJECT UNDER SAID CRZ ENDANGERS
ECOSYSTEM BY CAUSING IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE?
2.1.WHETHER THE COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION PROJECT
PROPOSED BY MoEFCC IS VIABLE?
3. WHETHER THE SAID CRZ PROVISIONS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE
TRIBAL PEOPLES RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD?
4. WHETHER THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION
OF SINDIA IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE PIL FILED BY SAVE BLUE SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF
SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE
i) Issues of environmental significance involves substantial public interest to
constitute a PIL
ii) Save Blue organization has Locus Standi to file Public Interest Litigation
before the Supreme Court of Sindia under Article 32 of the Sindian
Constitution

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |7
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
iii) Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Union of Sindia
1. THE PROJECTS UNDER THE SAID CRZ IS CAUSING IRREVERSIBLE
DAMAGE TO THE ECOSYSTEM
i) Island ecosystems are critical to biodiversity and any intrusion into its
isolation has disastrous consequences
ii) That the Union of Sindia is constitutionally obliged to protect the ecosystem
and biodiversity.
iii) That the respondent Union of Sindia has committed gross violations of its
constitutional duties by launching unsustainable development projects under
the CRZ
1.1.THE COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION PROJECT PROPOSED
BY MoEFCC IS NOT VIABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF THE
RESPONDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
i) Compensatory afforestation in Sindia is a mere eyewash and has not
been successful
2. THE SAID CRZ PROVISION IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL
PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
i) The impugned CRZ provisions are violative of the various provisions of
legislation and instruments protecting the right to livelihood of Indigenous
Tribes
3. THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION OF
SINDIA IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION
i) The impugned provisions of the notification are vague and ambiguous and
hence violative of Article 14 of the constitution of Sindia.
ii) The impugned provisions of the notification are substantially Ultra Vires the
Parent Act, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and hence void.

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |8
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
WRITTEN PLEADING
1. THE PIL FILED BY SAVE BLUE SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF
SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that the PIL filed by
Save Blue is maintainable as:
i) Issues of environmental significance involves substantial public interest to
constitute a PIL
PIL’s are extensions of Writ Jurisdiction established under Article 32 and Article
226 of the Sindian Constitution 1.Right to Constitutional Remedies under Article
32, according to the father of Constitution is the “Heart and Soul’’ of the
Constitution2. Public Interest Litigations and representative proceedings is the
present Constitutional Jurisprudence3. Public interest litigation is intended to
promote and indicate public interest which demands that violations of
constitutional or legal rights of large number of people who are poor, ignorant
or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go
unnoticed and unredressed4 and does not mean settling disputes between
individual parties.5
Environmental damage would be classified as a public nuisance, and public
officials would be obligated to assist in the mitigation of the effects of such
nuisance by the use of Public Interest Litigation as a powerful tool 6. The issue of
environmental degradation cannot but be termed to be a social problem and law
Courts also should rise up to the occasion to deal with the situation as it demands
in the present-day context7. These issues are of grave public concern which are to

1 Pari materia with the Constitution of India, 1949

2 B.R.Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates On 9 December, 1948, Constituent Assembly of India
debates - 164.100.47.194. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2021, from
http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C09121948.html.
3 A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly) v. Union of India, 1981 SC 298
4 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UOI , AIR 1982 SC 1473
5 Rural litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P, 1989 SC 594
6 Vardhichand v. Ratlam Municipal Council , 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
7 People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal. 215 at 228

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e |9
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
be disposed off critically ignoring the traditional process of standing in the court
and entertaining PILs8, in such cases even letter petitions are entertained 9.
The alleged provisions of CRZ which is the root cause of different infrastructure
projects in the Hamantha islands hinders the interest of indigenous tribes and
endangers the Ecosystem, Fundamental Rights of the local people ensured under
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution 10 are being violated. This involves
substantial public interest which on the face itself seeks urgent judicial remedy.
Therefore, PIL filed by Save Blue is maintainable on the very reason that it
involves acute Public Concern.

ii) Save Blue organization has Locus Standi to file Public Interest Litigation
before the Supreme Court of Sindia under Article 32 of the Sindian
Constitution.
A writ petition can be moved not only by an aggrieved individual but also by
public spirited individual or a social action group11 these are new methods and
strategies to provide justice to large masses people who are denied basic human
rights12 who are in a disadvantaged position due to poverty disability or other
social or economic impediment13, in such cases any member of the Public having
Sufficient interest can approach the courts for enforcing constitutional or legal
rights of such persons14these, broadened forms of legal proceedings are in keeping
with the current accent on justice to the common man. 15 Here, Save Blue is an
organization by native people exclusively devoted to research and other works to
develop marine ecosystem. 16 In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UOI 17,
the Court recognized the competence of voluntary organization to entertain writ
petitions to enforce fundamental rights of poor workers. Save Blue as any other

8 Samaj Parivartan Samyudaya v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2013 SC 3217

9 Compilation Of Guidelines to Be Followed for Entertaining Letters/Petitions Received in This Court as
Public Interest Litigation. (Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications)
10 The Constitution of Sindia is Pari materia with the Constitution of India, 1949
11 State of H.P v Students’ parent, 1985 SC 910 (para 5); Shenoy v Udipi Municipality 1974 SC 2177.
12 S.P Gupta and others v President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
13 Subhash v. State of Bihar, 1991 SC 420

14 Supra see note 13

15 Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344
16 Para 17 of the Factual Problem
17 Supra see note 4

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 10
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
organization has the right to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to
curtail the infringement of basic fundamental rights of the people residing in the
Hamantha Islands. It is clear that Public interest is promoted by a spacious
construction of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances18 if the
petitioner is bonafide19 and has sufficient public interest20 who have no personal
gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the PIL 21.This ability of
public-spirited individuals to use the Court as a fulcrum to leverage public policy
is perceived as a testament to the Indian democracy22.
The organization bonafidely intends to save the Environment and protect the
rights of the Indigenous tribal people whose lives are at stake due to the
discriminatory provisions; the organization and the other petitioners have no other
private or oblique motive.
iii) Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Union of Sindia.

The enforcement under Article 32 itself a fundamental Right 23 which is available

against the state under Article 13. The Union of Sindia, by its notification and
regulations have violated the Right to equality under Article 14, Right to
livelihood and the Right to safe Environment under Article 21 guaranteed to the
inhabitants of Hamantha Islands which forms the part of Sindia. Whenever there
is public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State, any
member of the public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can maintain
an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury 24. Since PIL is an
extension of Writ Jurisdiction of the Courts, PIL can be filed against the State for
the violation of Fundamental rights25 under Article 32 of the Constitution;
therefore, the PIL is maintainable against Union of Sindia.

18 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabha, AIR 1976 SC 1455

19 Supra see note 18
20Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, Para 64
21 State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, AIR 2010 SC 2551
22 A Patel, Petitioner and Member, Asim Barman Committee, in discussion with the author, Bangalore, 13

September 2004 and Delhi, 6 February 2007.

23 Durga Das Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India 3771(8TH Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa 2008).
24 Supra see note 20
25 Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331,

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 11
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
Henceforth we humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the PIL
filed by SAVE BLUE & Others for the intervention of the Supreme Court is
Maintainable

2. THE PROJECTS UNDER THE SAID CRZ IS CAUSING IRREVERSIBLE

DAMAGE TO THE ECOSYSTEM
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that the projects under
the said CRZ are causing irreversible damage to the ecosystem as:
i) That Island ecosystems are critical to biodiversity and any intrusion into
its isolation has disastrous consequences.
Islands make up 5.3% of Earth's land area, but an estimated 17% of plant species,
19% bird species, and 17% of rodent species are confined to islands, Sixty-one
percent of all species listed by the IUCN as extinct and 37% of species listed by
the IUCN as critically endangered are confined to islands 26, Habitat fragmentation
is one of the major causes of loss of biodiversity 27, Humans have a detrimental
impact on natural habitat due to various activities including deforestation,
urbanization, roads, the energy sector, mining, and climate change 28.
In 2nd April 2018, An American tourist was killed by crocodiles, which was found
to be due to excessive crocodile movements 29 as a result of Habitat fragmentation,
it is clear thus that the islands are already showing signs of animal distress
especially on vulnerable species such as Dugongs which are being found dead in
multiple numbers 30.The actions of the government to prohibit the beaches from
swimmers and restricting of fishing itself shows the admission of critical nature
of the situation resulting from human interaction with the local fauna, any further
human activity in the area will have devastating irreversible consequences to the
local biodiversity. Researches conducted by various universities suggest that

26
Bernie R. Tershy, Kuo-Wei Shen, Kelly M. Newton, Nick D. Holmes, Donald A. Croll, The Importance
of Islands for the Protection of Biological and Linguistic Diversity, BioScience, Volume 65, Issue 6, June
2015, Pages 592–597, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv031.
27
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics Vol. 34:487-515 (Volume publication date November 2003), First published online as a
Review in Advance on August 14, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
28
Colin G. Scanes,Chapter 19 - Human Activity and Habitat Loss: Destruction, Fragmentation,
and Degradation, Animals and Human Society,Academic Press,2018,Pages 451-482,
29
Para 8 of the Factual problem
30
Para 8 of the Factual problem

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 12
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
excessive human invasion of fragile ecosystems also result in spreading of
zoonotic disease31 as in the case of the Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Africa 32,
Island ecosystems are more vulnerable in this regard due to the tightly knit food
chains.
ii) That the Union of Sindia is constitutionally and statutorily obliged to
protect the ecosystem and biodiversity
The responsibility of a state to protect the environment is the notion that in
International Law gave rise to principle of state responsibility 33, the state is thus a
trustee and has a legal duty to protect the natural resources and the environment.
The following are the various facets of the constitutional duty of the state to
protect the environment:
Article 21, Right to life of flora and fauna: Article 21 of the Sindian constitution
has been interpreted as to include right to life for animals also. “The Right to life
under article 21 casts an obligation on the human beings to protect and preserve a
species becoming extinct, conservation and protection of environment is an
inseparable part of right to life” 34. Every species has a right to life and security,
subject to the law of the land, So as far as animals are concerned, “life” means
something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human
beings35.
Article 21, Right to Clean and Healthy Environment: Article 21 includes Right
to clean and healthy environment, The state has duty to afford protection to ‘life’,
in order to protect ‘environment’ and in order to protect ‘air, water and soil’ from
pollution36.The right to life, also includes the right to a wholesome environment37.
This wider interpretation to the fundamental rights cannot be emasculated in their
application by a narrow and constricted interpretation38

31 An infection or disease that is transmissible from animals to humans under natural conditions, Zoonosis,
MerriamWebster ,WebDictionary,
32 A. Wilkinson, David; C. Marshall, Jonathan; P. French, Nigel; T. S. Hayman, David (2018):

Supplementary material from "Habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the risk of novel infectious
disease emergence". The Royal Society. Collection. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4302668.v1
33 Intellectuals forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549
34 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 142
35 Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014
36 M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000)6 SCC 213
37 Charan Lal Sahu Etc. vs Union Of India, 1990 AIR 1480, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597
38 M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395; AIR 1987 SC 1086

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 13
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
Article 14, Duty to avoid arbitrary exercise of power in matters of
environment: It has been observed that “concept of social justice and equality are
complementary to each other and practical contents of right to life39”. In M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India40 , the Supreme Court affirmed that “environment and
ecology are national assets. They are subject to inter-generational equity”, which
means the present generation cannot indiscriminately use up the natural resources
at the cost of the future generations.
Article 48-A, Mandate to protect environment, forests and wildlife: Article
48 A of the constitution directs the state, to endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country 41. The state is
duty-bound under Article 48A of the Constitution to take immediate steps to
ensure the protection of endangered species from extinction 42.
The Public Trust doctrine: The state is the trustee of all natural resources which
are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment, the environment and the
ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private,
commercial or any other use43, in the interest of flora and fauna, widlife 44 “The
protection of environment is the obligation of the state and all other state organs
including courts”45. State is casted upon a duty to save the fast-diminishing forest
cover of the country46, The public trust doctrine is widely used by courts to
adjudicate on issues of environmental importance.
iii) That the respondent Union of Sindia has committed gross violations of its
constitutional duties by launching unsustainable development projects under
the CRZ
The Supreme court in N.D.Jayal v. Union of India47, stated “ The adherence to
sustainable development principle as a sine qua non for the maintenance of the
symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development”, also that

39 Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42; 1995 SCC (L&S) 604
40 (2009) 6 SCC 142;
41 Article 48A, Constitution of India
42 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277; AIR 2012 SC 1254
43 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000)6 SCC 213;
44 Centre for environmenta Law, World Wild fund – India v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234
45 T. Damodar rao v. Municipal Copn. Of Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171
46 A.P. State Fishermen Development and Welfare Association v. District Collector, 2010 (2) ALD 300.
47 (2004) 9 SCC 362; AIR 2004 SC 867

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 14
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
the concept of sustainable development is “ an integral part of right to ‘life’ under
Article 21”. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 in
which Sindia was a signatory 48 declared “In order to achieve sustainable
development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the
development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it” 49.Thus, it is
clear that the state has a duty to conduct any development in a sustainable manner,
but the state has failed to do so with regard to the upcoming projects in Hamantha
on the following grounds:
The Ocean Power project and the Emerald Island Project launched by the
government in Sabath, Gala and Hatten Islands endangers the Islands by
causing irreversible damage:
The Ocean power plant project in the Sabath Island is a huge project which
required taking up of 10 coastal villages50 which has huge environmental impact,
Research shows that Fish and marine mammals may suffer damage by collision
with the barrage and turbines, some estuaries which provide nurseries for breeding
fish in the coastline and conditions for these may no longer remain suitable for
breeding and egg laying.51The large area of the power plant may cause change in
tidal patterns in the area which might affect mangrove cover in the area,
Mangroves play an important role in providing ecological and societal goods and
services to local communities, including stabilizing shorelines and helping reduce
adverse effects of natural disasters such as tsunamis and hurricanes, serving as
breeding and nursing grounds for many marine and pelagic species 52 and
destruction of the same will prove disastrous.
The Emerald Island project in the Hala and Gatten island for which the
government reduced the distance from HTL for the NDZ to 10m, will result in
huge environmental ramifications similar to that of the power project, as it also

48 Laws of Sindia pari materia to laws of India

49 Principle 4, Rio declaration on environment and development, 2009
50 Para 12 of the Factual Problem
51 Burrows, Ruain & Walkington, I. & Wolf, Judith. (2009). Environmental impacts of tidal power

schemes. Proceedings of The Institution of Civil Engineers-maritime Engineering - PROC INST CIVIL
ENG-MARIT ENG. 162. 165-177. 10.1680/maen.2009.162.4.165.
52 Mafi-Gholami, Davood. (2016). An Overview on Role of Mangroves in Mitigating Coastal Disasters

(With Special Focus on Tsunamis, Floods and Cyclones).

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 15
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
encroaches into the beach ecosystems, resulting in plastic pollution and
disturbance of the habitats of rare species in the islands.
The bridge connecting Tara island to the other islands is evidently the most
disastrous project planned by the Union of Sindia, as the Island has been restricted
to public due to its unique host of rare and endemic species 53, and any connection
of the island with the other island will result in loss of its isolation which will
totally destroy a biodiversity we have only begun to understand which is evident
from the fact that new species of flora and fauna are being discovered in the
island54.
This series of amendments, notifications and Denotifications regarding the CRZ
shows that the Respondent Union of Sindia has not conducted any scientific
impact assessment studies as to the impact of the proposed projects and is
arbitrarily changing the rules upon just the intention of making the projects viable
and it is to be noted that over the past 27 years, the CRZ notification has been
iterated twice and modified 34 times, thereby making it the most amended law in
the history of India55.
Thus, here without the clear knowledge of the probable effects, ramifications,
irreversible harm of this project further developments of the same is not desirable
especially when it is reasonably assumable that no Environmental Impact
Assessment Studies has been done as such an assessment includes a mandatory
public hearing in the affected area 56 and from the facts that no such thing has been
done, evident from the lack of support from any inhabitants of the Island to the
project, The Precautionary Principle has to be applied here, the principle has
been recognized by the Apex court as, a principle shifts the burden of proof in
environmental cases on the polluter/individual to prove that his activity/industry
is not a health hazard, damaging the environment and his action is

53 Para 12 of the Factual problem

54 Para 14 of the Factual problem
55 Ishan Kukreti, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification: What development are we clearing our coasts for

DownToEarth,https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/governance/amp/coasta
l-regulationnotification-what-development-are-we-clearing-our-coast-for-63061, (Last accessed on 29-10-
2021).
56 Environmental Impact Assesment Notification, 2006, Ministry Of Environment And Forests,

Published in the Gazette of India, extraordinary, part-II ... (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2021, from
http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA_notifications/2006_09_14_EIA.pdf.

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 16
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
‘environmentally benign’57, This doctrine is the essence of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India58. The court has explained that the person who wants to
maintain the status quo by maintaining a less polluted state should not carry the
burden of proof and the party who wants to alter it by carrying on some activity
must bear the burden59.Thus, the burden is on the State to prove that the proposed
projects under CRZ are sustainable.
Henceforth it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the proposed projects under the
said CRZ will cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem of the Island.
2.1.THE COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION PROJECT PROPOSED BY
MoEFCC IS NOT VIABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES:
It is humbly submitted that the Compensatory afforestation proposed by the Respondent
Union of Sindia is inviable and violative of the state’s constitutional duties as:
The Respondent Union of Sindia, in the year 2021 under the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued an order allowing
states or UTs with over 50% forest cover to carry out compensatory afforestation
work in other states or UTs which have degraded forest land, and the state of Gir
Pradesh has agreed to carry out compensatory afforestation on 650 sq.km. in its
own territory of degraded forest land to enable land diversions in the Hamantha
islands60.
The Compensatory afforestation proposed by the Union of Sindia is under the
statutory mandatory afforestation under Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Para
3.2(iii) of the order under the FC Act, 1980 prescribes that as far as possible the
non-forest land for compensatory afforestation should be identified contagious to,
or in close proximity to the reserved forest61 or protected forest to enable the forest
department to effectively manage the newly planted area and para 3.2(iv) of the

57 Environmental Law , S.C.Shastri, 5th Edition , pp. 78

58 Samaj Parrivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 154; AIR 2013 SC 3217
59 CM Jairwala, Complex Enviro-Techno Science Issues: Judicial direction, (January- March 2000) 42

JILI 29
60 Para 15 of Factual Problem
61 Term “Forest” means forest under Forest Conservation Act, 1980, [The word “Forest” must be

understood in its dictionary meaning, includes all statutorily recognised forests , whether designated as
reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of FC Act, 1980 - Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 267]

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 17
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
order prescribes that in the event no non forest land is available in the same district
the government can divert land in any other district in the same State or UT as
close as possible to the diverted site so as to minimize impact to the micro-ecology
of the area62. The new impugned order of the Respondent in the year 2021 63,
totally disregards the purpose for which the newly planted area has to be close to
the diverted area.
The state under Article 21 is entrusted with the duty to protect and preserve the
right to life of endangered flora and fauna64, any compensatory afforestation work
elsewhere in the world can never replace the unique and endemic flora and fauna
in the Hamantha Island and will affect its microecology severely, the state also
has duty under Article 48 A of the Constitution of Sindia to protect the unique
biodiversity of its land 65. Thus the impugned order to conduct mandatory
afforestation elsewhere is violative of the fundamental rights under Article 21 and
the Directive Principle under Article 48A if the Sindian Constitution and hence
invalid.
i) Compensatory afforestation in Sindia is a mere eyewash and has not been
successful
Compensatory afforestation is adding to environmental damage instead of
mitigating it, compensatory afforestation may actually be accelerating the
invasion of India's forests by big corporations, in collusion with a permissive state,
by legitimizing the destruction of forests, greenwashing the land grabs, and
encroaching on common property resources and community-held lands 66. The
whole mandatory afforestation exercise has not been successful in Sindia, in
November 2017, a study by the Community Forest Rights-Learning and
Advocacy (CFR-LA)67, analyzed compensatory afforestation plantations and
found that that over 70 percent of those were set up on forest land instead of non-

62Application of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, The official website of Ministry of Environment, forest
and Climate Change. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, from
http://moef.gov.in/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/fca1980.pdf.
63 Para 11 of the factual problem
64 Ibid at page 12
65 Ibid at page 13
66 Soumitra Ghosh, Compensatory afforestation, Economic and Political Weekly 2017 Vol.52 No.38 pp.

unpaginated, ISSN: 0012-9976

67 La - about Us. CFR. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2021, from http://www.cfrla.org.in/about.html.

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 18
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
forest land in clear violation of the guidelines issued under the FC Act 68.It is hence
clear that the impugned order is not a viable solution for sustainable development
in the Hamantha islands.
Thus, it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the impugned project of compensatory
afforestation is not a viable alternative to land allocation in the Hamantha Islands and
violative of Article 21 and Article 48A of the Constitution.
3. THE SAID CRZ PROVISION IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL
PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the CRZ provision is contrary to
the native tribal people’s Right to Livelihood as:
Indigenous and tribal peoples have their own cultures, languages, customs and
institutions, which distinguish them from other parts of the societies in which they find
themselves69. Hamantha island is a home to six indigenous tribes and their primary
occupations are fishing and little agriculture 70. Introduction of CRZ provisions
endangered the life, livelihood and shelter of indigenous tribal people and violated their
Constitutional and legal rights on the following grounds:
i) The impugned CRZ provisions are violative of the various provisions of
legislation and instruments protecting the right to livelihood of
Indigenous Tribes.
Right To Livelihood and Shelter Under Article 21: In Francis Coralie v.
Union Territory of Delhi71Supreme Court held that right to live is not
restricted to mere animal existence, it also includes “the right to live with
human dignity”, and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities
of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter. The Right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 includes ‘Right to livelihood’72, as right to
livelihood is borne out of Right to life, no person can live without the means

68 Trivedi, K. (2020). Community Forest Rights At a Glance 2017-2020. Community Forest Rights
Learning and Advocacy Process, Oxfam India and Kalpavriksh.
69 Who are the indigenous and tribal peoples, (2016, July 22), Retrieved October 30, 2021, from

https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenous-tribal/WCMS_503321/lang--en/index.htm?
70 Para 7 of Factual problem
71 AIR 1981 SC 746
72 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni, 1983 AIR 109,

1983 SCR (1) 828

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 19
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
of living, that is, the means of Livelihood. 73, and this right cannot hang on to
the fancies of the individuals in authority 74.
“Right to shelter is also a fundamental right, which springs from the right to
residence assured in Art.19(1)(e) and right to life under Art.21 of the
Constitution75”, The right to shelter, does not mean a mere right to a roof over
one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live
and develop as a human being 76which must be a reasonable accommodation. 77
The Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition Of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: The Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,2006
guarantees the right to hold and live in the forest land for self-cultivation for
livelihood of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest
dwellers 78. And guarantees right of ownership, access to collect, use, forest
produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village
boundaries 79. It also protects other community rights of uses or entitlements
such as fish and other products of water bodies 80.The Act ensures rights
including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal
groups and pre-agricultural communities 81. Moreover it has been held that
Grama Sabha functioning under this Act 82 read with Section 4(d) of PESA
Act83 has an obligation and power to safeguard and preserve the traditions and
customs of the STs and other forest dwellers, their cultural identity,
community resources etc.84

73 Olga Tellis v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180

74 MX of Bombay Indian Inhabitants v. M/s. ZY, AIR (1996) 1234 :(1996) SCC (1) 74
75 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr vs Friends Coop. Housing, 1996 AIR 114
76 Chameli Singh v. State of UP, 1996 AIR 1051, 1995(6) Suppl. SCR 827, 1996(2) SCC 549
77 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR (1990) SC 630: (1990) 92 BOMLR 145: JT

1990 (1) SC 106

78 Section 3(1)(a) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006
79 Section 3(1)(d) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006
80 Section 3(1)(c) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006
81 Section 3(1)(e) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006
82 Section 5 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006
83 ‘Every Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions, customs of the people,

their cultural identity, community resources and community mode of dispute resolution’, Section 4(d), The
Provisions Of The Panchayats (Extension To The Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 no.40 Of 1996
84 Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180

of 2011

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 20
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
Obligations under International Instruments for protection of livelihood
of Indigenous people: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples85Declares that Indigenous peoples and individuals have
the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their
culture86 and that States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of,
and redress for any action against them dispossessing them of their land or
resources, or depriving them of their integrity as a community; It also ensures
their right find their own traditional way of subsistence, and to engage freely
in all their traditional and other economic activities and when they are
deprived of these rights, they are entitled to just and fair redress 87.
The Indigenous and Tribal People’s Convention, 1989 Resolution states
that the peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities
for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and
spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use and that they
shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans
and programs for national and regional development which may affect them
directly88.
Bearing in mind the above provisions, looking at the factual circumstances. Here, the
Indigenous Tribal people of the Island come under the classification of Scheduled tribes 89,
they depend on natural resources of the forest for their sustenance, 90and their habitat has
been historically encroached by outsiders91, thus they need to be protected. Fishing is an
important source of livelihood for the tribal communities traditionally and displacement
of tribals from their homeland has resulted in loss of subsistence and their traditional
method of livelihood .The arbitrary action of the Respondent Union of Sindia to relocate
the tribal people from their homeland amount to a grave violation of their Right to

85 United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 13 September 2007, (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2021, from
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wpcontent/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_
E_web.pdf
86 Article 3, United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, 2007
87 Article 20, United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, 2007
88 Article 7, Indigenous and Tribal People’s Convention, 1989
89 Article 342 of the constitution dealing with procedure of scheduling
90 Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors, AIR 1997 SC 3297.
91 Supra see note 90

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 21
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
livelihood and Right to shelter under Article 21 92, their Rights93 under Forest Rights Act94
and various other international Instruments for the protection of their livelihood 95.
It is also contended that Doctrine of Eminent Domain which confers power on the state
to attach property can be challenged when the attachment is preposterous or not for public
purpose at all96.
The constant notifications, de-notifications of the CRZ notification only saw discussions
and deliberations between the executives of the UT and the Central government, which
have never included participation of members of the Indigenous tribes which is a violation
of the Gram Sabha’s right97 under the Forest rights Act98 , and many projects under CRZ
2019, were concealed from public view, which endangers the forests, indigenous tribes
and coastal areas of islands 99. On January 2020 the student’s association of Hamantha
College started protest in front of Raj Bhavan against CRZ and the protest continued in
social medias 100. Thus, even though disharmony was shown from islanders, projects of
CRZ were not dropped which clearly violates all Standards of Natural Justice and the
Constitutional, Statutory Rights of the Tribal people101
Therefore, it is hereby submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the said CRZ provision
is contrary to the native tribal people’s right to livelihood.
4. Whether the CRZ giving excessive discretion to the Union of Sindia is ultra vires
of the parent law and the constitution?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindia that the CRZ giving excessive
discretion to the Union of Sindia is Ultra vires the parent law and the Constitution.
i) The impugned provisions of the notification are vague and ambiguous and
hence violative of Article 14 of the constitution.

Article 14 of the constitution declares that “the state shall not deny to any person
equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of

92 Ibid at page 18
93 Ibid at page 19
94 The Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
95 Ibid at page 20
96 Sooraram Reddy v. Gatherer, (2008)9 SCC 552
97 Ibid at page 19
98 The Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
99 Para.16 of Factual problem
100 Para.13 of Factual problem
101 Ibid at page 18

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 22
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
India102”, “the article being a basic feature of the constitution cannot be destroyed
even by an amendment of the constitution under article 368 of the
Constitution103”. The Rule of law doctrine encompassed in Article 14 of the
constitution, has mainly three aspects – Absence of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy
of the law, Equality before the law and that the Constitution is the result of
ordinary law of the land 104. The use of arbitrary power is thus violative of Right
to equality under Article 14 of the constitution.
The proviso to clause 5.4.1, of the impugned notification confers exclusive power
on the Union to limit or impose prohibitions and regulations to the said CRZ V
Zone including power to modify the CRZ limit and to notify and de-notify the No
development zone and alter its limits, “in advancement of development and public
interest of the nation 105”, except for island in ecologically sensitive zones i.e.,
Sakura Island. It is contended that the words advancement of development and
public interest of the nation are vague, ambiguous and will lead to arbitrary
exercise of power by the executive for the following reasons:
a) The impugned provisions fail the test of reasonableness and test of
arbitrariness which is vital and dynamic aspect of Equality under Article 14:

Article 14 mandates reasonable classification and prohibits class legislation. The

two conditions propounded in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar106 for
a legislation to pass the test of reasonable classification: i) the classification must
be founded on an Intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are
grouped together from others; ii) that differentia must have a rational nexus to
the object of the Act., the question for determination is whether there is some
difference which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation 107
The classification created by the terms “advancement of development” and
‘public interest of the nation” does not imply a difference capable of clear
understanding. It fails to provide an ordinary man with a fair comprehension as

102 Article 14
103 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299
104 Dicey, Law of the Constitution, pp. 202-3 (10th ed.)
105 Para 11 of the Factual Problem
1061952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284
107 K Thimmappa v. Chairman Central Board of directors, SBI: (2001) 2 SCC 259

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 23
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
what is public interest and what is not, similarly what is advancement of
development and not. Every state action must be informed by reason and it follows
that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary 108 and further if the provision does
not satisfy the two conditions referred to the impugned legislative or executive
action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14
would be breached109.

In the Press Release, the aim and purpose of CRZ 2019 was stated as “ The Central
Government, with a view to conserve and protect the unique environment of the
coastal stretches and marine areas, besides livelihood security to the fisher
communities and other local communities in the coastal areas and to promote
sustainable development based on scientific principles taking into account the
dangers of natural hazards, sea level rise due to global warming” 110. Conferring
exclusive power to the Union through the proviso to clause 5.4.1 will function
against the objective rather than in favor of the said CRZ provisions and hence
fails the second test of rational nexus.
To attract Art. 14, it is also necessary to show that the selection or differentiation
is unreasonable or arbitrary; that it does not rest on any rational basis having
regard to the object111.E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu112 propounded the
Doctrine of Arbitrariness. According to the doctrine, Article 14 also includes
a guarantee against arbitrariness in State action. Wherever there is arbitrariness in
State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an “authority”
under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such
State action113.
The proviso to 5.4.1 confers excessive power upon the Union to act contrary to
the unique island ecosystem and endanger the safety of the island inhabitants by
working within the ambit of phrases “advancement of development” and ‘public
interest of the nation” The Emerald island project which de-notified the islands

108 Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212

109 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors, 1981 AIR 487, 1981 SCR (2) 79
110 Para 10 of the Factual Problem
111 Jaila Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 1436: (1976) 1 SCC 682.
112 1974 AIR 555
113 Supra see note 108

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 24
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
Gala and Hatten from No development Zone and the limit was reduced from 50
metre to 10 metre from HTL is an evident arbitrary result of the above mentioned
provision which has the potential to cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem.
Where the power conferred by a statute on any authority of the State is vagrant
and unconfined and no standards or principles are laid down by the statute to guide
and control the exercise of such power, the statute would be violative of the
equality clause114. Here, no principles have been stated to determine the limits of
the above-mentioned phrases and prevent the state from misusing within the veil
of national development the authority conferred.
ii) The impugned provisions fall within scope of “Void for vagueness doctrine”

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its
prohibitions are not clearly defined 115. Vague laws offend several important
values of “Rule of Law” as it is difficult to limit its scope. It is an American
principle that requires the invalidation of laws that are impermissibly vague 116.
The ‘doctrine of vagueness’ is founded on Rule of law, particularly on the
principles of fair notice, fair notice to the citizen comprises a formal aspect an
acquaintance with the actual text of a statute and a substantive aspect an
understanding that certain conduct is the subject of legal restrictions,… a statute
which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application, violates the first essential of due process of law.117 Precision and
guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary
or discriminatory way.118Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair
warning119. The Supreme Court while considering the question whether the
doctrine of 'void for vagueness' is applicable in India 120, observed that 'no law will
be considered bad for sheer vagueness' is not an absolute principle 121. It also

114 Naraiandas Indurkhya v. State of M.P 1974 AIR 1232, 1974 SCR (3) 624
115 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 at para 130-131
116 Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926)
117 Supra see note 116
118 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972).
119 Supra see note 115
120K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 AIR 481, 1971 SCR (2) 446

121 Municipal Committee, Amritsar vs State Of Punjab & Ors,1969 AIR 1100, 1969 SCR (3) 447

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 25
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
observed that the invalidity arises from the probability of the misuse of the law to
the detriment of the individual, The Apex Court has reiterated and reinforced the
void for vagueness doctrine evolved and refined in other constitutional
jurisdictions122.
The phrases “advancement of development” and ‘public interest of the nation” is
vague and ambiguous expressions, hence confers arbitrary and excessive powers
in the state which is beyond what is required in the interests of public. The absence
of any norms to limit the ambit the authority is free to extent its application
according to their whims and fancies and this has in no doubt lead to arbitrary
exercise of power by the Union by launching the Emerald Island project. The
detrimental effects of reducing the limit from 50 metres to 10 metres is
unimaginable and if the impugned provision is not struck down immediately, the
Indigenous tribes and the island flora and fauna will be deprived of their
fundamental right to life under Article 21. Thus, it is clear that the impugned
notification is Ultra vires the Constitution for being vague, ambiguous and
arbitrary.

iii) The impugned provisions are Ultra vires to the parent Act as being violative
of Sec. 3. Of Environment protection Act, 1986

Section 3123 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 confers with the Central
Government the power to take appropriate measures subject to the provisions of
the Act. The CRZ notification and the subsequent Government Action prima
facie violates Sec. 3(1) of the Act as the impugned provisions do not satisfy the
purpose stated as “for protecting and improving the quality of the
environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental
pollution’’ as arbitrary power will be exercised and on the other hand its
implementation will have degrading effects on the Ecosystem. If the exercise of
power is in the nature of subordinate legislation, the exercise must conform to the
provisions of the statute, all the conditions of the statute must be fulfilled. 124 The

122 B. Rama Raju v/s Union of India, 2011 SCC Online AP 152; Romesh Thappar vs The State Of
Madras, 1950 AIR 124; A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr, 1982 AIR 710 ,
123 Sec. 3 of Environmental Protection Act, 1986
124 State of U.P v Renusagar Power Co, 1988 AIR 1737, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 627

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 P a g e | 26
2ND PROF. RV DHANAPALAN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BY CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE, SALEM
subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of
the rule-making power provided in the statute. 125The validity of a subordinate
legislation is questionable when exercise of it will be arbitrary or unreasonable
that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it 126. Power delegated by
statute is limited by its terms and subordinate to its objects and the delegate must
act in good faith, reasonably, intra vires the power granted127.The Executive
authority here has already exercised its arbitrary power and proved disastrous to
the Object of the Enabling Act.

Therefore, the impugned provisions are liable to be struck down being Ultra Vires to
the Parent Act.

PRAYERS
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised arguments advanced and authorities cites
the Petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Supreme Court
may adjudge and declare that:

1. THE PIL FILED BY SAVE BLUE SEEKING INTEFERANCE OF

SUPEREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
2. THE PROJECTS UNDER THE SAID CRZ IS CAUSING IRREVERSIBLE
DAMAGE TO THE ECOSYSTEM
3. THE SAID CRZ PROVISION IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL
PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO LIIVELIHOOD
4. THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UNION OF
SINDIA IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION AND HENCE VOID.

125 Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co, 1976 AIR 1031, 1976 SCR (1) 552
126Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India and ors AIR 1990 SC 334
127 Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 1277, 1990 SCR (1) 909

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER