Team B - Petitioner Memorial

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 41

TEAM CODE - B

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. 420/2023

5TH WILDLIFE PROTECTION GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL


MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023-24.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF SAULT

IN THE MATTER OF

THE VENNITE BOARD……………………………………………PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF NERJIA AND ANR.………………………….……...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

1|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF FACT ....................................................................................................... 12

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................... 14

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 17

A.THAT CHIEF WILDLIEF WARDEN’S ORDER IS ARBITRARY ............................. 17

[A.1] That there is a violation of Principle of Natural Justice ............................................ 17

[A.2] That the legitimate expectation of Vennite Board to be granted permission to conduct
the pilgrimage to the YD Temple was nullified. .................................................................. 18

[A.3] Chief Wildlife Warden’s order did not take into consideration the doctrine of
proportionality making it unreasonable & untenable. ......................................................... 20

B.THAT AMENDMENT ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL .............................................. 22

[B.1] That it is violative of Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution. .......................................... 22

[B.2] That it is violative of Art. 26(b) of the Indian Constitution. ........................................... 25

[B.3] Violation of Right to Equality pursuant to Article 14 ..................................................... 26

[B.4] Recognition of right to religion as a human right is regarded important by the constituent
assembly and internationally.................................................................................................... 28

C.THAT THERE ARE THREE ALTERNATIVE MEASURES THE STATE CAN


REASONABLY EMPLOY TO MITIGATE THE ISSUES ARISING OUT
PILGRIMAGES INTO THE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. ................................................ 29

[C.1] Implement immediate precautionary measure ................................................................ 29

[C.2] Adopting the Green Pilgrimage Model ........................................................................... 32

[C.3] Compliance with strategies in consonance with International Conventions. ................. 33

1|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

D.THAT SUPREME COURT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS IN SUCH A


CASE ....................................................................................................................................... 34

E. THAT THE PRESENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY VENNITE BOARD


BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF SAULT IS MAINTAINABLE. ......................... 37

[E.1] That there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights of the Vennites. ................ 37

[E.2] That there is no alternative remedy suiting to the situation ............................................ 38

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 39

2|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL TEXT

¶ Paragraph

Sec. Section

& And

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

Art Article

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ors Others

U.O. I Union of India

United Nations Convention to Combat


UNCCD Desertification

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on


Climate Change (UNFCCC)

3|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

v. Versus

CWW Chief Wildlife Warden

PNJ Principle of Natural Justice


WPA Wildlife Protection Act

4|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND ACTS

1. Environment Protection Act, 1986. 35

2. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 35

3. The Constitution of India, 1950 20,24,33,36

4. The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022 25

5. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 25

CASES

1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262,272. 15

2. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. Of Police (1983) 4 23

SCC 522.

3. Assistant Commsnr., H.R. & C.E. Salem, etc., v. Nattamai K.S. 23

Ellappa 1987 SCC OnLine Mad 30.

4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation 19

(1948) 1 KB 223.

5. C.N. Eswara Iyer v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and 22

Charitable Endowment Board, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 157.

5|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

6. Chandrabhal Singh v. Union of India D.B. Civil W.P. No. 2627 of 29

2019.

7. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613. 24

8. Charles Sobraj v. Central Jail (1978) 4 SCC 104. 37

9. Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41. 24

10. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore 18

District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. (2007) 4 SCC

669.

11. Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha 22

Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282.

12. Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392. 28,34

13. Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 24

752.

14. Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz (2016) 16 SCC 788. 20

15. Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of 32

Environment and Animals, Civil Appeal Nos. 3438- 3439 of 2020.

16. In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380. 25

17. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5 J) v. State of 21

Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1.

6|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

18. Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602. 25

19. Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161. 15

20. K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Rama- Swamt lyer and others 23

1972 T.L.N.J. 404.

21. Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 37

725.

22. Keonjhar Nava Nirman Parishad and Ors. v UOI and Ors, W.P. (C) 17

No. 3323.

23. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 22

SCC 225.

24. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725, 733. 33

25. Kuppuswami Chetty and others v. The Commr., H.R. & C.E 1972 23

T.L.N.J. 443.

26. Madras City Wine Merchants’ Assn. v. State of Tamil 16

Nadu., (1994) 5 SCC 509.

27. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248. 15

28. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 285. 14

29. MC Mehta v. Union of India (Shram-Oleum Gas), (1978) 1 SCC 33

161 Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

(2020) 3 SCC 637.

7|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

30. Monohar Das Mohanta v. Charu Chandra Pal AIR 1955 SC 228. 24

31. Muthia Asari v. Madasami Asari (1965) 2 Mad LJ 220. 23

32. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106. 21

33. Om Kumar v UOI, (2001) 2 SCC 386. 17,18,19

34. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996,999. 36

35. Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727. 17

36. R.Sasikumar v. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, 16

Virudhunagar & Ors. W.P.(MD)No.17475 of 2021.

37. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124. 37

38. Rural Litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P, 1985 AIR 675. 28

39. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51. 23

40. Sahara Indian (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 14 SCC 151. 14

41. Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5116. 29

42. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288; see also 24

Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM (PJ) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC

764.

43. State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil (2020) 18 24

SCC 443.

8|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

44. State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Kharak Singh v. 37

State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332.

45. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 SCR 284. 26

46. State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, (1985) 1 SCC 317. 33

47. Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 16

499.

48. Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241. 34

INTERNATIONAL CASES
1. Davie v. Benson 133 US 333 20
2. R v. Oakes (1986) 26 DLR 2001 17

TREATIES AND DECLARATIONS

1. Covenant on civil and political rights 26

2. Declaration on the Right of Persons belonging to Religious and 27


Linguistic Minorities.

3. International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination 26


(1966)

4. Universal Declaration of Humar Rights 26

9|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES, JOURNALS & GUIDELINES

1. Kanika Sharma, Essential Religious Practices in Light of the 20

Sabarimala Judgment NLIU LR 2, 298, (2019).

2. Nidhi Gureja, Ashok Kumar and Suraj Saigal, Human-Wildlife 28

Conflict in India, Prepared for NBSAP.

3. Erry A. M Essmer, Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of 28

Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-

5230, USA, Human–Wildlife Conflicts 3(1):10–17, Spring 2009

Commentary, Human–wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and

opportunities.

4. National Tiger Conservation Authority (Normative Standards for 30

Tourism activities and Project Tiger) Guidelines, 2012.

5. U.N. International Conference on Human Environment, (June 5-16- 30

1972).

6. Elkin, C., Rattan, S., Devy, S., Ganesh, T. (2019)., Case study on 31

ARC’s green pilgrimage work in Indian protected areas.

7. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment 2017; 31

The Hindu July 2017.

8. Setting the trend for green religious tourism; The Hindu. 31

10 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

9. E Gross, A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife 32

Coexistence, WWF, GLAND, SWITZERLAND, (2021).

10. Abhisst K Thaker & Madhuri Parikh, The Dusk of Wildlife and the 32

Dawn of Conflict in India: A Legal Monograph, (2021) 11 GJLDP

(October) 73.

11. S. Leslie et. al., Human Wildlife Conflict mitigation: Lessons 33

learned from global compensation and insurance schemes, Annex

Report HWC Safe Series WWF Tigers Alive, 11 (2019).

12. Guidelines For Ecotourism in And Around Protected Areas 2nd June 34

2011

BOOKS

1. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (LEXIS NEXIS 25


BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, NAGPUR, 6TH ED., 2010)

2. MAMTA RAO, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EASTERN BOOK 33


COMPANY 2021).
3. I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EBC Publishing (P) 34
Ltd., Lucknow 2017).

4. V.G. RAMCHANDRAN, LAW OF WRITS 26 (EASTERN 32


BOOK COMPANY 2006).

11 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to Article 32 of the Constitution of Sault the present writ petition has been preferred

in the matter of The Vennite Board v. State of Nerjia & Anr. The relevant provision has been

produced hereinbelow:

Article 32 of the Constitution1 –

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights

conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The SC 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 SC 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 SC under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided

for by this Constitution.

THE PETITIONERS HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS

HON'BLE COURT.

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32

12 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACT

1. BACKGROUND

Sault has a rich history, with trade routes from ancient civilizations running through the country.

This resulted in people from numerous cultural and religious backgrounds settling in Sault. As

a result, when the nation gained independence from colonial rule, secularism was included as

part of the preamble of its Constitution, not simply as a traditional separation of religion and

state, but in order for the state to protect religious pluralism, diversity, and tolerance.

2. INTRODUCTION TO VENNA FAITH

One such religion is the Venna faith, which although has a small following of only a few tens

of thousands, is entirely localised to Sault. Vennites (followers of Venna) are primarily found

near the Vels Forest, a tropical rainforest in the north-eastern state of Nerija. Inside the Vels

Forest is a temple of Yussef Dayes (“YD”), who is considered as the deity of the Venna faith.

The mythology of YD is written in a holy book called the Vennology, which was written around

two thousand years ago. Chapter I of the Vennology sets out the crux of the religious beliefs of

the Vennites. These include the belief in YD as a deity and the moral and ethical code of all

Vennites. Chapter II of the Vennology contains the religious sacraments of the Vennites. This

chapter also contains a portion that prescribes a pilgrimage to the temple of YD by Vennites

which may be undertaken annually. The majority of Vennites consider Chapter III as not being

mandatory, and meant to be a guide to life practices for Vennites.

3.CONDUCTION OF PILGRIMAGE

The Vels Forest is also the habitat of the Ezrat Leopard, a highly endangered species of

Leopard, local to Sault. The Ezrat Leopard is in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The Vels Forest was declared as a ‘sanctuary’ in 2021.Vennites were undertaking pilgrimages

13 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

to the YD temple for many years prior to the Vels Forest being declared a ‘sanctuary’. In 2021

and 2022, the Vennites undertook the pilgrimage on two occasions. On both occasions,

permission was granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden to approximately 10,000 Vennites to

undertake the pilgrimage to the YD temple.

4. PASSING OF AN AMENDMENT & AS A CONSEQUENCE CWW’s ORDER

4. The State of Nerija decided to pass an amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 titled

“The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2023” (“Act”). In August 2023, the Vennite Board

applied for a permit from the Chief Wildlife Warden of Nerija to enter the Vels Forest for the

purpose of their pilgrimage. However, the Chief Wildlife Warden, by an administrative order

dated August 25,2023 (“Order”), communicated the following: “The office of the Chief

Wildlife Warden is in receipt of the application seeking a permit to enter the Vels Forest for the

purpose of pilgrimage to the YD Temple. However, in view of Section 27(1A) and Section 28

of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the grant of permit for the purpose of pilgrimage cannot

be granted under law, and therefore, the request for permit is refused”

5. FILING OF PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The Chief Wildlife Warden’s Order is arbitrary and untenable. The Vennite Board has a

legitimate expectation to be granted permission to conduct the pilgrimage to the YD Temple.

Accordingly, the Court ought to pass a Writ of Mandamus directing the Chief Wildlife Warden

to grant the Vennite Board a permit for their pilgrimage. The amendment Act is violative of the

Vennites’ fundamental right to religion, and ought to be struck down as unconstitutional. The

State of Nerija has opposed the Petition.

14 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~ISSUE-A~

Is the Chief Wildlife Warden’s Order arbitrary?

~ISSUE-B~

Is the Amendment Act unconstitutional?

~ISSUE-C~

What alternative measures can the State reasonably employ to mitigate the issues arising out

of pilgrimages into the wildlife sanctuary?

~ISSUE-D~

What directions, if any, is the SC empowered to issue in such a case?

~ISSUE-E~

Whether the present writ of mandamus filed by the Vennite board before the SC of Sault is

maintainable?

15 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. THAT CHIEF WILDLIEF WARDEN’S ORDER IS ARBITRARY.

It is humbly submitted that the Chief Wildlife Warden’s order is arbitrary on account of a

violation of Principle of Natural Justice coupled with nullification of the legitimate expectation

of Vennite Board to be granted permission to conduct the pilgrimage to the YD Temple & lastly

non-consideration of the doctrine of proportionality making CWW’s order unreasonable &

untenable.

B. THAT AMENDMENT ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It is humbly submitted that the Amendment Act is unconstitutional being violative of Art. 25,

Art. 26(b) & Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution. It is also not in consonance with the

international standards and even Constituent assembly where there is recognition of right to

religion as a Human right.

C. THAT THERE ARE THREE ALTERNATIVE MEASURES THE STATE CAN

REASONABLY EMPLOY TO MITIGATE THE ISSUES ARISING OUT

PILGRIMAGES INTO THE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY.

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the alternative measures State can reasonably

to employ to mitigate the issues arising from pilgrimages into the wildlife sanctuary&

implement immediate precautionary measure (pre & post harmful events), adopting the already

successful Green Pilgrimage Model & Compliance with strategies in consonance with

International Conventions.

D. THAT SUPREME COURT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS IN SUCH


A CASE

It is humbly submitted that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 32

of the Constitution of Sault. Art. 32(2) confers power on this Court in its widest terms by

16 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

stating, "it is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs", but "it is much wider and

includes within its matrix power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be

appropriate for enforcement of the Fundamental Right in question" having the force of law.

E. THAT THE PRESENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY VENNITE BOARD

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF SAULT IS MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that the Present Writ of Mandamus filed by

Vennite Board is maintainable on the grounds, firstly, that there has been a gross violation of

fundamental rights of Vennites under Art. 25,26 & 29 which brings them to Supreme Court.

Secondly, that existence of alternative remedy should not be a bar to approach this Hon’ble

given the grievous situation.

17 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. THAT CHIEF WILDLIEF WARDEN’S ORDER IS ARBITRARY.

(1). The Counsel humbly submits that the Chief Wildlife Warden’s order is arbitrary on account

of firstly, [A.1] that there is a violation of PNJ, secondly [A.2] the legitimate expectation of

Vennite Board to be granted permission to conduct the pilgrimage to the YD Temple was

nullified, & thirdly, [A.3] Chief Wildlife Warden’s order did not take into consideration the

doctrine of proportionality making it unreasonable & untenable.

[A.1] That there is a violation of Principle of Natural Justice

(2). It is humbly submitted that while issuing an order the Chief Wildlife Warden has violated

the PNJ. Lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard before caring out such an untenable

decision is violation of PNJ & this violation of PNJ should be heeded by the SC. The Supreme

Court has the power to prevent miscarriage of justice even if relates to administrative enquiries2

& inequalities.

(3) Earlier, the rigid view that the principles of natural justice applied only to judicial and quasi-

judicial acts and not to administrative acts, no longer holds the field. 3 The old distinction

between judicial act and administrative act has withered away. Today, even a pure

administrative action entailing civil consequences must be consistent with rules of natural

justice’4, and inconsistency with such needs to be countered by the SC,. It is emphasized before

the Court of Law that before taking such a decision which affects the fundamental rights of

pilgrimage which has been conducted in some form for as long as the Venna faith has been in

2
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262,272.
3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 285
4
Sahara Indian (Firm) v. CIT (2008) 14 SCC 151

18 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

existence the CWW did not take into consideration the reasonable opportunity to hear the

petitioners

(4) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India5, “It is well established that even where there is no

specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action

proposed to be taken against the individual which affects the rights of that individual, the duty

to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be

performed by the authority which has the power to …. damaging actions.” It is humbly

submitted that the Petitioners were at the mercy of CWW’s order & grant of permit under Sec.

28.

(5) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that if the purpose of the revision natural

justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice6, those basic Principle of Natural Justice should be

applied judicially for tenable decisions. Herein where the followers of the Venna Faith were at

the mercy of CWW. It was the duty of CWW to provide Vennites with a reasonable opportunity

to be heard.

[A.2] That the legitimate expectation of Vennite Board to be granted permission to


conduct the pilgrimage to the YD Temple was nullified.

(6) It is emphasized before the Hon’ble SC that the legitimate expectation carried out by the

Vennites to conduct their pilgrimage was nullified by the CWW’s order. Legitimate expectation

in the present case is not a mere anticipation, it is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of

law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the

public.7 Legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review. 8

5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
6
Supra Note 2.
7
Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161.
8
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499.

19 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

(7) Legitimate expectation may arise— (a) if there is an express promise given by a public

authority; or (b) because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can

reasonably expect to continue; (c) Such an expectation must be reasonable.9 Now, primarily, in

lieu of (b) & (c), arose a legitimate expectation from the Chief Wildlife Warden to continue

such grant of permit under Sec. 27 & 28 because the pilgrimage has been conducted in some

form for as long as the Venna faith has been in existence. In its present form, the pilgrimage

has taken place since the 20th Century.10

(8) On a secondary level, restricted entry can be permitted only under the special permissions

to be given by Chief Wild Life Warden under Section 28 of the Act for specific purposes.

Among the specific purposes, whether the purpose of the petitioner and his men can be fit in.11

for which the recent case of R.Sasikumar case needs to be emphasized. It was held under Clause

(d) of Sub Section (1) of Section 28 of the Act, the tourism has also been mentioned as one of

the purposes and therefore, this Court feels that, insofar as the plea of the petitioner is

concerned, for the purpose of visiting the temple, where according to them, their community

deity is located, their plea can very well be considered by the respondents.

(9) It is humbly submitted before the Court in a case where at least in some years in the recent

past, permission needs to be obtained under Sec. 28 for worshipping the deity and casts such

obligation on CWW to permit it there exists a legitimate expectation of the people from public

authority to fulfil the duty deriving the power from substantive part of the principle. The

substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is made that a benefit of a substantive

9
Madras City Wine Merchants’ Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 5 SCC 509.
10
Clarification.
11
R.Sasikumar v. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar & Ors. W.P.(MD)No.17475 of
2021.

20 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit that it will be continued

and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced.12

[A.3] Chief Wildlife Warden’s order did not take into consideration the doctrine of
proportionality making it unreasonable & untenable.

(10) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that CWW’s order fails to qualify the test

of proportionality. In R v Oakes13, CJ. of the Canadian Supreme Court has observed that there

are three important components of the proportionality test which were also cited in the case of

Om Kumar v UOI14 and further in Keonjhar Nava Nirman Parishad and Ors. v UOI and Ors.15

The components are - Firstly, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the

objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations.

Concisely, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Secondly, the means, must not

only be rationally connected to the objective in the first sense, but should impair as little as

possible the right to freedom in question. Thirdly, there must be 'proportionality' between the

effects of the measures and the objective.

(11) In the present case, CWW’s order did not touch upon the matter more than on a superficial

level. According to the facts & circumstances, it is illogical & whimsical on the part of CWW

to grant such an order i.e., blanket prohibition of pilgrimages without any consideration or

regard for the Vennite or Venna faith. It is urged before the court that complete prohibition is

not the solution comprising of a sensitive issue. As this will ultimately lead to a complete

shutdown of each and every activity which comes in the way of Protected Area(s). An approach

that balances both i.e., wildlife & human needs to be adopted. It is not permissible to use a

12
Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727.
13
R v. Oakes (1986) 26 DLR 2001
14
Om Kumar v UOI, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
15
Keonjhar Nava Nirman Parishad and Ors. v UOI and Ors, W.P. (C) No. 3323.

21 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

“sledgehammer to crack a nut”. As has been said many a time; “where paring knife suffices,

battle axe is precluded”16

(12) . Administrative action in India affecting fundamental freedoms has always been tested on

the anvil of 'proportionality' in the last fifty years 17 .“Proportionality” involves “balancing test”

and “necessity test”. Whereas the former (balancing test) permits scrutiny of excessive onerous

penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant

considerations, the latter (necessity test) requires infringement of human rights to the least

restrictive alternative.18 Therefore, it is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble Court there was no

recourse to neither test. This administrative action of CWW has led to violation of fundamental

rights

(13) In cases where if the concerned statute permitted the administrative authorities to exercise

power or discretion while imposing restrictions in individual situations, question frequently

arises whether a wrong choice is made by the administrator for imposing restriction or whether

the administrator has not properly balanced the fundamental right and the need for the

restriction or whether he has imposed the least of the restrictions or the reasonable quantum of

restriction etc. In such cases, the administrative action in our country, in our view, has to be

tested on the principle of 'proportionality', just as it is done in the case of the main legislation.19

(14) It is humbly requested to the Hon’ble Court wherein considering the Amendment Act the

CWW’ order did not succeed in qualifying the test i.e., not acting arbitrarily or whimsically

and acting in a fair, reasonable and objective manner without taking into account any

extraneous consideration, following the principles of natural justice, & taking a decision by

16
Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees
Assn. (2007) 4 SCC 669.
17
Om Kumar v UOI, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
18
Supra note 15.
19
Supra note 16.

22 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

due application of mind and by recording reasons and taking rational decision20 it has resulted

in non-justification of doctrine of proportionality.

B. THAT AMENDMENT ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

(15) The Counsel most humbly submits that the Amendment Act is unconstitutional because

firstly, [B.1] It is violative of Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution. Secondly, [B.2] It is violative

of Art. 26(b) of the Indian Constitution. Thirdly, [B.3] tumbling apart of Amendment Act under

Art. 14 of the Indian & lastly, [B.4] Recognition of right to religion as a human right is

regareded important constituent assembly and internationally.

[B.1] That it is violative of Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution.

(16) If the instant matter is booked in strait-jacket formula, it would prove to be fatal to the

protection of religious pluralism, diversity and tolerance. 21


It is humbly submitted that the

matter before us is not simply about implementation of an Amendment Act which causes

inconvenience to people at the behest of some species. The issue before us is larger than that.

It is about religion. A discord about the same which has led to new interpretations as their

ramifications on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.22

(17) Religion has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those

profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual being. It prescribes rituals and observances,

ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion. 23
It is

humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that one such religion is, Venna faith, primarily

found near the Vels Forest,.24 Venna has a following of tens of thousands localised to Sault.

20
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223.
21
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
22
Kanika Sharma, Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala Judgment NLIU LR 2, 298, (2019).
23
Davie v. Benson 133 US 333.
24
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.

23 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

Yussef Dayes (“YD”) is considered as the deity of the Venna faith. The mythology of YD is

written in a holy book called the Vennology, written around 2000 years ago.

(18) Now, the crucial point here is that religion will form its foundational basis on some

religious practice & which will be protected under Art. 25. Article 25(1)25 states that the essence

of the test of essential religious practice has been evolved to protect right to freely profess,

practise & propagate the religion. The test of essential religious practices is applied in almost

every case where the court is to decide between the interests of the society and the freedom of

religion.26 As explained in the case of Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz27, “The

essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded and essential

practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious belief. It is upon the

cornerstone of essential parts or practices that the superstructure of religion is built.”

(19) The contention before this Hon’ble Court is to repute the pilgrimage to be an essential

religious practice. It is imperative upon the Court because pilgrimage, being as essential

religious practice, is protected under Art. 25 of the Indian Constitution & violation of the same

is abhorrent. As rightly said in the case of N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board28,

“…...the protection under Article 25 and 26 extend a guarantee for rituals and observances,

ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion and as to what really

constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts

with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion.”

(20) To substantiate, there is scriptural evidence of the same in Chapter I & Chapter II of

Vennology. It is humbly submitted, reading Chapter I & Chapter II of Vennology in consonance

with each other leads to a conclusion invariably-(a) belief in YD deity and taking a pilgrimage

25
INDIAN CONST, art. 25 cl. 1.
26
Supra note 2.
27
Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz (2016) 16 SCC 788.
28
N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106.

24 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

to worship the deity forms the very crux and foundation of the Venna faith. (b) Unhindered

continuity29 in the practice of undertaking pilgrimages Makes it attain an essential religious

practice and a change in the part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the

character of the religion or in its beliefs30.

(21) Further substantiating, material placed before the Court of holy book is enough to extend

the application of Art. 25 and assume it to be an integral part of religion. C.N. Eswara Iyer v.

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board 31


, the Court held that in

case those practices are found to be essential and integral parts of their religion, the

Constitutional protection would extend to those practices. There should be materials placed

before the Court to demonstrate that a particular practice has attained the character of an

essential religious practice.

(22) To draw conclusion, an Amendment Act vis-à-vis Sec. 27(1A) & 27(1B) prohibiting a

protected essential religious practice under Art. 25 is violative of fundamental right guaranteed

under the Indian Constitution. It is submitted that an amendment should not alter the basic

structure of the Constitution or be repugnant to the objectives set out in the Preamble 32 and

cannot be exercised to make the Constitution unidentifiable by altering its basic concept

governing the democratic way of life.

[B.2] That it is violative of Art. 26(b) of the Indian Constitution.

(23) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that under Art. 26(b) of the Indian

Constitution a right is guaranteed to a religious denomination33 to manage its own affairs in

29
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5 J) v. State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1.
30
Ibid.
31
C.N. Eswara Iyer v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad
157.
32
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
33
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiarof Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC
282.

25 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

matters of religion which in this case. Therefore, Petitioners being the religious denomination

in this case, the Vennite Board. The Vennite Board shall have the right- to manage its own

affairs in matters of religion as guaranteed under Indian Constitution.

(24) The words ‘religious denomination’ in Art. 26 of the Constitution must take their colour

from the word. It was held in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranan Avadhuta v. Commr. Of

Police34, a religious denomination must satisfy three conditions: 1. It must be a collection of

individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their

spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith;35 common organisation, and designation by

distinctive name.36 A mere satisfaction of three conditions can be evidently confirmed from the

given factual matrix.

(25) In the case of K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Rama- Swamt lyer and others,37&

Kuppuswami Chetty and others v. The Commr., H.R. & C.E.38 “When the question arises as to

whether or not a temple has been dedicated to a particular sect, the performance of the worship,

of the idol in accordance with the rites of the sect for whose benefit it was held might be treated

as evidence of dedication”. It is humbly adduced to the Court that evidence of dedication is

enough to satisfy the autonomy that needs to be granted to the Vennite Board for managing

their religious affairs. There is peculiarity in worshiping the idol “YD” and is uncommon to all

other sects, which was taken as a determining factor in another case as well.39

(26) From the time immemorial the said lands are treated as part and parcel of the Petitioner

& there is conclusively a complete dedication of the same in favour. In State of Tamil Nadu v.

34
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commr. Of Police (1983) 4 SCC 522.
35
Muthia Asari v. Madasami Asari (1965) 2 Mad LJ 220.
36
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51.
37
K.V. Vaidyanatha Sastrigal v. K.S. Rama- Swamt lyer and others 1972 T.L.N.J. 404.
38
Kuppuswami Chetty and others v. The Commr., H.R. & C.E. 1972 T.L.N.J. 443.
39
Assistant Commsnr., H.R. & C.E. Salem, etc., v. Nattamai K.S. Ellappa 1987 SCC OnLine Mad 30.

26 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil,40, the court recognised the right of the Temple over Alagar

Hills as it had there had been long and continuous possession of the same. The YD Temple is

also in the long and continuous possession of the Vennites41and cannot be taken away. Applying

the Monohar Das Mohanta v. Charu Chandra Pal42 case to the present case, the Supreme court

allowed a right to passage to the temple through the reserved forest. In the present case, there

is a right over the YD temple by the Vennites as a matter of prolonged enjoyment of the property

and denying them entry into the temple will be a serious violation of their rights.

[B.3] Violation of Right to Equality pursuant to Article 14

(27) It is humbly submitted before the Court of law that the law always frowns on un-canalised

and unfettered discretion conferred on any instrumentality of the State.43A law conferring

absolute or uncontrolled discretion on an authority negates equal protection of law because

such power can be exercised arbitrarily so as to discriminate between persons and things

similarly situated without reason.44

(28) Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of

procedure.45 It is humbly submitted that every person is entitled to equality before law and the

equal protection of the laws,46 Laws apply equally to all persons equally circumstanced.47

Article 1448 forbids class legislation; Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the following

two tests:(1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible

differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped

40
State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil (2020) 18 SCC 443.
41
Clarification.
42
Monohar Das Mohanta v. Charu Chandra Pal AIR 1955 SC 228.
43
Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288; Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM (PJ) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,
(2005) 7 SCC 764.
44
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 6th ed., 2010).
45
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613.
46
Faridabad CT. scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752.
47
Chiranjeet Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
48
INDIAN CONST., art. 14.

27 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

together in the class from others left out of it. (2) The differentia adopted as the basis of

classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved

by the statute in question.

(29) The impugned amendment act is not based on any intelligible differentia as the Act is

discriminatory prima facie. The differentia used by the Government is to protect the Ezrat

leopards has no basis because Section 2849 provides for circumstances for grant to any person

a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary namely: — (a) investigation or study of wild life and

purposes ancillary or incidental thereto; (b) photography; (c) scientific research; (d) tourism;

(e) transaction of lawful business with any person residing in the sanctuary. Section 27(1)(A)50

of the present amendment act prohibits any pilgrim from entering the sanctuary. In R. Saikumar

v. Wildlife Warden51 the court took note that “pilgrimage cannot be separated from tourism”.

(30) It is most humbly submitted that the differentia which is the basis of the classification and

the Amendment are distinct things and there must be a nexus between them.52 To attract Article

14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation rests on a rational basis with

regards to the object which the Legislature has in view while making the law in question.53 The

Vennites had been undertaking pilgrimages to the YD temple for many years prior to the Vels

Forest being declared a ‘sanctuary’. Moreover, there is no official data recording any instances

of human-wildlife conflict between the Vennites and the Ezrat Leopard,54 prior to 2021. The

49
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, § 28, No. 53, Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India).
50
The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022, § 27(1)(A).
51
Supra note 11.
52
In re Special Courts Bill, 1978 v. Unknown, (1979) 1 SCC 380.
53
Jalia Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 602.
54
Moot Proposition, ¶ 9.

28 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

data mentioned after 2021 was due to “self-defense”.55 It was not taken into consideration that

the vulnerable group is the human in the present case as compared to the leopard.

(31) In the light of argument that the said Act does not uphold the test of reasonable

classification and nexus with the object of the Act, and violates the spirit of Article 14.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Amendment Act should be

struck down as unconstitutional as violative of Art. 25, 26 & 14 of the Indian Constitution.

[B.4] Recognition of right to religion as a human right by the constituent assembly and
internationally

(32) Firstly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Humar Rights56 declares the freedom of

religion in the following terms: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and

religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone

or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in

teaching, practicing, worship and observance.” In order to give effect to the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights the member states of the United Nations adopted the following

two covenants in 1966: (1) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 1857 of the Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights ensures the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article

5(d)(vii)58 of the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1966)

recognized the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. in 1992 the General

55
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
56
A18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
57
A18, Covenant on civil and political rights.
58
A 5, Article 5(d)(vii) of the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1966).

29 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

Assembly of the United Nations reaffirmed the rights of minorities to enjoy their own culture,

to profess and practice their own religion.59

(33) The Republic of Ireland, by its Constitution adopted in 1937, devotes one Article

exclusively for religion. It reads: “Art 44: (1) The State acknowledges that the homage of public

worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and

honour religion. The concept of religious freedom as incorporated in Articles 25 and 26 of our

Constitution was largely based upon Article 44(2) of the Irish Constitution. Also, applying the

constituent assembly debates in the present case the freedom to propagate religion includes

within its ambit the practice of pilgrimage by the Vennites.

C. THAT THERE ARE THREE ALTERNATIVE MEASURES THE STATE CAN

REASONABLY EMPLOY TO MITIGATE THE ISSUES ARISING OUT

PILGRIMAGES INTO THE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY.

(34) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the measures the State needs to

employ to mitigate the issues arising from pilgrimages into the wildlife sanctuary are firstly,

[C.1] implement immediate precautionary measure (pre & post harmful events). Secondly,

[C.2] adopting the green pilgrimage model & lastly, [C.3] compliance with strategies in

consonance with International Conventions.

[C.1] Implement immediate precautionary measure

(35) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court Conflict between humans and wildlife –

which takes many forms and varies greatly in intensity – is one of the most serious threats to

India’s wildlife. It is essential, therefore, to place instances of conflict within a wider context

of an unresponsive legal/administrative climate.60 In 2021 and 2022, both years there were

59
Article 2 of the Declaration on the Right of Persons belonging to Religious nd linguistic Minorities.
60
Nidhi Gureja, Ashok Kumar and Suraj Saigal, Human-Wildlife Conflict in India, Prepared for NBSAP
https://kalpavriksh.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Human-wildlife-Conflicts-January-.2003.pdf.

30 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

numerous instances of conflict between the Vennites and the Ezrat Leopard61 to which State

paid no attention to. The unresponsiveness of administration has led to such ramifications that

it has brought us before the Hon’ble Court.

(36) The mandate that “nothing operates in a vacuum” is especially applicable to managing

human–wildlife conflicts.62 The State needs to take immediate action with vigil to mitigate the

issues arising out the pilgrimage as to resolve the conflicts. As reiterated in the case of Rural

Litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P.63, the Apex Court held that the Governments should

exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between the

preservation and utilisation of natural resources i.e., utilization of the Vels Forest for conducting

pilgrimage.

(37) In lieu of such, a situation could arise when the Central Government would have to

balance the conflicting interests of development and ecology and grant permission to use

forests for non-forest purposes; under the WPA, there is no question of any such balancing64.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that for the Pilgrimage to be conducted in a

safe & sound manner without any harm to the habitat of the Ezrat Leopard65 a balancing is

required. In addition, Petitioners do not believe in extreme solutions. Instead, Petitioners

believe in alternate efficacious remedies for the welfare of both parties instead of the solution

plagued with bias.

(38) An alternative solution to prevent such situation with the harmonious dwelling of Humans

and animals. An effective precautionary measure that can be employed by the State reasonably

to mitigate the issues arising out the pilgrimages into the Wildlife Sanctuary will be firstly, (a)

61
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
62
Erry A. M Essmer, Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA, Human–Wildlife Conflicts 3(1):10–17, Spring 2009 Commentary, Human–wildlife
conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities.
63
Rural Litigation and Entitlement v. State of U.P, 1985 AIR 675.
64
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392.
65
Moot Proposition, ¶ 8.

31 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

Deployment of Forest Staff & Forest Staff should be provided with firearms (b) a wildlife crime

cell (called Special Ezrat Leopard Special Task Force) should be established66 (c) Wildlife and

other specific training programmes may be organized for the field staff67 (d) it makes provision

for establishing dedicated control rooms, toll free numbers, and other departmental committees

to look into this conflict and provide recommendations for improvement (e) Lastly, using of

latest GPS technology powered collars68 for Ezrat Leopard taking pro-active role in a balanced

wildlife conservation with human needs.

(39) Secondly, The State Forest Departments here could have undertaken all the practical

measures to manage human-wildlife conflict, like the construction/erection of physical barriers,

such as barbed wire fences, solar-powered electric fences, bio-fencing using cactus, and

boundary walls, amongst other things, to prevent the entry of wild animals69crossing the

passage of pilgrims. Moreover, setting up anti-depredation squads to drive away problematic

animals70could support in mitigating the issue of conducting pilgrims into the Wildlife

Sanctuary.

(40) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble taking reference from the National Tiger

Conservation Authority (Normative Standards for Tourism activities and Project Tiger)

Guidelines, 2012 which focuses on dealing with Animal-man conflict, in case of an

mishappening such guidelines need to be followed to dial-down the problem i.e. (a) ensuring

uniform, timely compensation for human deaths due to wild animals (b) procurement and

deployment of traps, cages to catch problematic animals (c) procurement of tranquilizing

equipment, rescue vehicles and drugs.71 In this dynamic environment the success of mitigation

66
Chandrabhal Singh vi. Union of India D.B. Civil W.P. No. 2627 of 2019.
67
Shri B.C. Choudhury, Former Faculty, WII Dr. Abhijit Das, Scientist-D, WII.
68
Supra note 8.
69
Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5116.
70
National Tiger Conservation Authority (Normative Standards for Tourism activities and Project Tiger)
Guidelines, 2012.
71
Ibid.

32 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

action will rest mainly on the ability of the decision-makers and wildlife managers to recognise,

embrace, and incorporate differing stakeholder values, attitudes, and beliefs 72 working out a

plan for the current issue.

[C.2] Adopting the Green Pilgrimage Model

(41) It is humbly presented before the Hon’ble Court that avoidance of such an issue in the

near future for conducting the pilgrimage into the Wildlife Sanctuary can be done through

taking precautionary measures as mentioned above & in consonance with setting the trend for

Green Religious Pilgrimage Model. Before the Hon’ble Court is presented the best possible

solution that will ease the pressure allowing Petitioners to conduct Pilgrimage in a peaceful

manner. It will not only help in conducting the Pilgrimage smoothly but also NOT at the cost

of Wildlife. It is a model providing protection to the ecology as a whole.

(42) Green Pilgrimage model themes around adequate responsibility on man.73 It was a

successful model initiated in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, located in the Western

Ghats biodiversity hotspot in Tamil Nadu State. Green Pilgrimage integrates religious actors

into the model identifying the main threat for instance (a) Water Pollution (b) Waste and

Sanitation (c) Disturbance to Wildlife74. This model led to the development of practical

strategies to mitigate negative impacts on the Reserve, many of which have been adopted by

the Forest Department and other stakeholders. As a result of these efforts, observers and the

media lauded the 2017 pilgrimage festival as the greenest ever.75 The Aadi Amavasai festival

72
Supra note 3.
73
U.N. International Conference on Human Environment, (June 5-16-1972.
74
Elkin, C., Rattan, S., Devy, S., Ganesh, T. (2019)., Case study on ARC’s green pilgrimage work in Indian
protected areas. Available online: http://www.routledge.com/ ISBN:978-1-138-09118-4
75
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment 2017; The Hindu July 2017.

33 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

passed off peacefully at the Sorimuthu Ayyanar Temple inside Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger

Reserve (KMTR), thanks to the meticulous measures taken by the official machinery 76

(43) It needs to be emphasized that taking precautionary measures in addition to adoption of

these Green Pilgrimage Model gives us the long-term solution which could prove to be fruitful

to the wildlife & human community as well at hand but it is also submitted with this that the

proposed solutions are not exhaustive, and new solutions could be sought with the advent of

better research and collaboration with scientific bodies and experts in the field. The resort to

an alternative remedy though might seem complex at the outlay of it will prove to be a

promising solution in the long run and will ensure smooth development of continuing pilgrims

into the Wildlife Sanctuary.

[C.3] Compliance with strategies in consonance with International Conventions.

(44) The International Convention has time and again brought forth the issue of human-wildlife

conflict resolution through community participation and the participation of local

governments.77 Taking cues from international policies and incorporating them in the national

Human-wildlife conflict management policy must be the way forward wherein the State must

anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation, which leads to Human-

wildlife conflict78 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that timely implementation

of such management policy with due respect to international policies will mitigate the issue at

hand and even prevent future damage.

76
Setting the trend for green religious tourism. The Hindu, [Online].://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-
national/tptamilnadu/setting-the-trend-for-green-religious tourism/article19362254.ece (Accessed November
2017).
77
E Gross et. al., A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence, WWF, GLAND, SWITZERLAND,
(2021).
78
Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animals, Civil Appeal Nos. 3438-
3439 of 2020.

34 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

(45) The UNFCCC along with CBD and the UNCCD79, attempts to improve human-wildlife.

The proposed IUCN SSC task force strategies, which are to be tabled in 2023 for mitigation of

human-wildlife conflict can be used in coming times as a directive for domestic policies. It was

established in the year 2016, this Task Force on human-wildlife conflict acts as an advisory

body on matters of wildlife conflict and focuses on interdisciplinary approaches to tackle with

the conflict. 80

(46) In lieu of such proposed solutions, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that

we as petitioners & society keep in mind that animals are incapable of claiming the rights on

their own. Therefore, it falls incumbent upon the citizens to take this duty as a responsibility

providing for a check on the prevention of harmful activities. To sum up, prevention can be

accomplished through effective law enforcement, early warning systems, and policy can be

framed in a way that takes into account both local conditions and international laws.81

D. THAT SUPREME COURT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS IN SUCH


A CASE.

(47) It is humbly submitted that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under Art.

32 of the Constitution of India. Art. 32(2)82 confers power on this Court in its widest terms by

stating, "it is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs", but "it is much wider and

includes within its matrix power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be

appropriate for enforcement of the Fundamental Right in question".83 Moreover, the direction

79
Abhisst K Thaker & Madhuri Parikh, The Dusk of Wildlife and the Dawn of Conflict in India: A Legal
Monograph, (2021) 11 GJLDP (October) 73.
80
S. Leslie et. al., Human Wildlife Conflict mitigation: Lessons learned from global compensation and insurance
schemes, Annex Report, Hwc Safe Series, Wwf Tigers Alive, 11 (2019),
https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_human_wildlife_conflict_mitigation_annex.pdf.
81
Ibid.
82
Supra note 1.
83
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725, 733

35 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

that shall be issued by this court u/a 3284 shall have the force of law. 85 In light of the same, it

is humbly pleaded that this Hon'ble Court may issue the directions mentioned below in nature

of directing the State to provide relief against the breach of fundamental rights already

committed by them and to prevent a further breach. 86

(48) It is humbly requested to the SC that it should be directing the Central government to

formulate guidelines87 for the entry of pilgrims into the protected areas with an aim of balancing

the conflicting interests88, whilst safeguarding the fundamental rights of the petitioners. It is

undeniable that only the least restrictive measure can be resorted to by the State, taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances89 and the authorities must assess the existence of any

alternative mechanism in furtherance of the goal. In the past, guidelines have been issued by

the Ministry of Environment and Forests for Ecotourism in and around Protected Areas.90

Along the same lines, the state may be directed to issue similar guidelines for planning,

development, implementation and monitoring of the green pilgrimage in Sault.

(49) In furtherance of the same, directing the State of Nerija to formulate a set of guidelines-

State-Level Eco pilgrimage Strategy, which may cover aspects including, but not restricted to,

local community participation and benefit-sharing, conduction of pilgrimage accompanied

with a sound environmental design, educating the locals and deployment of trained personnel

inside the protected areas during the pilgrimage period, adequate monitoring and evaluation of

84
Supra note 1.
85
State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, (1985) 1 SCC 317; K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC
655;Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P.) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622; Dinesh Trivedi, M.P.
v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 .
86
MC Mehta v. Union of India (Shram-Oleum Gas), (1978) 1 SCC 161.
87
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241.
88
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, (2004) 2 SCC 392.
89
Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 637.
90
Guidelines For Ecotourism In And Around Protected Areas 2nd June 2011
Http://Www.Indiaenvironmentportal.Org.In/Files/Guidelines%20for%20ecotourism.Pdf.

36 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

the impact of eco-pilgrimage. The state may also be directed to take reference from the

numerous models and alternative solutions already mentioned by the Petitioners.

(50) The State of Nerija may be directed to formulate an Eco-Pilgrimage Plan (EPP)91 in

consonance with the guidelines, which may include:

A. Identifying the YD Temple inside Protected Areas as ‘sacred groves’ with strict building

and expansion controls, in accordance with the Forest Conservation Act, 198092 and the

Environment Protection Act, 1986.93

B. Identify (using GPS) and monitor the ecologically sensitive areas surrounding PAs, in

order to ensure the ecological integrity of corridor/buffer areas.

C. Assess carrying capacity of the Protected Area, at three levels: physical, real and

effective/permissible carrying capacity of pilgrims.

D. Set a ceiling level on number of pilgrims allowed to enter a Protected Area at any given

time, based on the carrying capacity94 of the habitat.

E. Develop generic guidelines for environmentally acceptable and culturally appropriate

practices, in collaboration with local communities, to ensure long-term local-

community benefit-sharing.

As an interim relief, directing the Chief Wildlife Warden to grant entry permission to the

pilgrims inside the protected zone.

91
Guidelines For Ecotourism in And Around Protected Areas 2nd June 2011
Http://Www.Indiaenvironmentportal.Org.In/Files/Guidelines%20for%20ecotourism.Pdf.
92
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, No. 69, Acts of Parliament, 1980 (India).
93
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
94
M.E. Geores,, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001.

37 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

E. THAT THE PRESENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED BY VENNITE BOARD

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF SAULT IS MAINTAINABLE.

(51) It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that the Present Writ of Mandamus filed by

Vennite Board is maintainable on the grounds, firstly, [E.1] that there has been a gross violation

of fundamental rights of Vennites under Art. 25,26 & 29 which brings them to Supreme Court.

Secondly, [E.2] that there is no alternative remedy suiting to the situation except for

approaching the Supreme Court.

[E.1] That there has been a gross violation of fundamental rights of the Vennites.

(52) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in case of gross violation of

fundamental rights of citizens, the citizens have the right to recourse under Art. 3295 of the

Indian Constitution. From the present facts & circumstances, it can be made out that by

completely prohibiting the Vennites from conducting their pilgrimage which is their essential

religious practice under Art. 25 prohibiting them from managing their religious affairs under

Art. 26 & lastly devoicing them from protecting their minority status under Art. 29 of the Sault

Constitution is utter violation of the fundamental rights which the solemn book of Constitution

aims to protect.

(53) It is highlighted before the Court that the right to take proceedings by original petition

straight in the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights is guaranteed in

Art. 32 96
& in itself is a fundamental right. The fundamental right to move this Court can,

therefore, be properly described as the corner-stone of the democratic structure raised by the

Constitution. It is natural that this Court should regard itself ‘as the protector and guarantor of

fundamental rights’ and should declare that ‘it cannot, consistently with the responsibility laid

95
Supra note 1.
96
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996,999.

38 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of such

rights.’97

(54) In the case of Charles Sobraj v. Central Jail,98 the Court held that whenever the

fundamental rights are flouted or legislative protection ignored to any citizens’ prejudice, the

Court will give appropriate relief. The Court’s writ will run breaking through stone walls and

iron bars to right the wrong and restore the rule of law99. The right conferred in Art. 32 being a

fundamental right cannot be abrogated, abridged or taken away by an Act of the legislature. It

has accordingly been held that a law which has the effect of retarding the assertion or

vindication if the fundamental right of the petitioner would be unconstitutional. 100

[E.2] That there is no alternative remedy suiting to the situation

(55) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the existence of an alternative

remedy is no bar to the grant of remedy under Art. 32.101 In cases involving the breach of

fundamental rights, even under Art. 226, the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground

for the refusal of proper relief. 102


It is emphasized before the Court of law that this is an

extraordinary circumstance which requires the assistance of Supreme Court. Existence of

alternative remedy should not hold a bar in resolving the issue at hand which requires Supreme

Courts’s assistance in declaring an Amendment Act unconstitutional & declaring Chief Wildlife

Warden’s order Arbitrary & only possible under the hand of SC. As a petitioner’s challenge

under Art. 32 extends not only to the validity of a law but also to an executive order or action

with or without authority of law.

97
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124.
98
Charles Sobraj v. Central Jail (1978) 4 SCC 104.
99
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
100
Supra_note 4.
101
Supra note 98.
102
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.

39 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
__________________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, may the Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold, adjudge, and declare that:

• The Chief Wildlife Warden’s Order is arbitrary.

• The Amendment Act is unconstitutional.

• Mentioned alternative measures should be reasonably employed by the State to mitigate

the issues arising out of the pilgrimage into the Wildlife Sanctuary.

• SC is empowered to issue directions in such case.

All of which is most respectfully,

Submitted Counsel on the behalf of Petitioner.

40 | P a g e

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy