1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE: TC-19

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDI

IN THE MATTERS OF:

MR. X ... APPELLANT

V.

THE UNION OF INDI ...RESPONDENT

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO :_________

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDI

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………………….2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………3-4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………6-7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………….8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED AGAINST UNION OF INDI

IS MAINTAINABLE……………………………………………………………………10-11

II. WHETHER ANCIENT CUSTOM CAN BE SET ASIDE?.......................................11-19

2.1 Protection to religious practices…………………………………………………………..14

2.2 Essential Element of Religion……………………………………………………….15

2.3 Ash Scattering in other Nations……………………………………………………..16

2.4 Right to dignity of the Deceased……………………………………………………17

ISSUE III: WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF INDI FAILED TAKE INITIATIVE TO PROTECT

RIVER GARUDA? ……………………………………………………………………19-22

3.1 Ganges Action Plan………………………………………………………………..19

3.2 National River Ganga Basin Authority (NRGBA) ……………………………….20

3.3 Namami Gange Programme……………………………………………………….20

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………..23

1
1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

¶ Para

¶¶ Paras

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad

Art. Article

Cal Calcutta

Del Delhi

Ed. Edition

Ori Orissa

p.. Page No.

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

SCC Supreme Court Report

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

Sec. Section

u/a Under Article

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Hon’ble Honorable

NMCG National Mission for Clean Ganga

NGT National Green Tribunal

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

2
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEXT OF AUTHORITY

BOOKS, ARTICLE

1.Banerjee, Digest of Land Acquisition & Compensation cases, 2Edition 1997, ALH.

2. Basu D.D , Constitution of India ,14th edition 2009, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa

3. Behura N.K. Panigrahi Nilakantha, Tribals and the Indian Constitution, Edition 2006,

4. Desai . A. Ashok, Environmental Jurisprudence , 2nd Edition 2002, Modern Law House.

5. Dhirajlal & Ratanlal, The Law of Torts.26th edition 2012, LexisNexis Butterworths

6. Divan Shyam , Rosencranz Armin ,Environmental Law and policy in India, Second

Edition 2004, Oxford India paperbacks.

7. Doabia T.S, Environmental & Pollution laws in India, 1ST Edition ,Nagpur.

8. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth

9. Jaswal P.S., Environmental Law, 2nd Edition 2006, Allahabad Law agency.

10. Karkara G.S., Environmental Law, 1st Edition, 1999, Central Law Publications.

11. Leelakrishnan P., Environmental Case Law Book, 2nd Edition 2006, LexisNexis

12. Maheshwara N. Swamy, Law relating to Environmental Pollution and Protection, 2

13. Rajendra Prasad, Law of Social Status, Edition 1998, Hindu Law House.

14. Seervai H.M. , Constitutional law of India, 4th Edition 2002, Volume 2.

CASES REFERRED

1. S.P. Anand v. H.D Deve Gowda, 1996, SCC 734

2. V Anna raja vs The Secretary to The Union Of India (2019), Madras H.C

3. Balwant Singh(State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal), (2010) 3 SCC 402

4. Coffee Bd. v. Jt. C.T.O, AIR 1971 SC 870, Para

5. The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53 BOMLR 779

6. In Sri Krishna Singh vs Mathura Ahir and Others,

3
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

7. Seshammal & Ors, Etc. Etc vs State of Tamil Nadu on 14 March, 1972

8. Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt case

9. Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union of India & Ors,1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 99

10. Ramji Singh Mujeeb Bhai Vs. State of U.P. and others (2009) 5 Alj 376

11. Pradeep Gandhy vs The State of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2020, W.P.(C) 3270/2020 on 28

12. Vineet Ruia vs State of West Bengal & Ors on 21 July, 2020

13. Sh.Madhu Vijayan and Anr. vs Sh.S.G.Ravishankar, SCC, 2006

LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

3. West Law

4. Hein Online

LEXICONS

1. Aiyar Ramanathan P , Advanced Law Lexicon, 3

2. Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,

LEGISLATION

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Environment Protection Act-1986

3. The water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act-1974

4. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

4
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for Respondents, most Humbly and respectfully, concede that this Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Indi has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this instant Public Interest

Litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indi,1950. Its further submitted that all

procedure requirement have been adhered to in the prescribed manner.

The present memorandum sets forth the fact, contention and argument in the present case.

5
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Garuda is a trans-boundary river of Asiana which flows through Indi and

Banglidesh. The 2,525 km (1,569 mi) river rises in the western Hims and empties into the Bay

of Dongal. It is the third largest river on Earth by discharge. The Garuda is the most sacred

river to Hindus. It is a lifeline to millions of Indi who live along its course and depend on it for

their daily needs. It is worshipped as the Goddess Garuda in Hinduism.

2. The Garuda is threatened by pollution. This poses a danger not only to humans but also

to animals. The levels of fecal coliform bacteria from human waste in the river near Panasi are

more than the Indi government's official limit. The Garuda Action Plan, an environmental

initiative to clean up the river has been taken up but is a failure which is variously attributed to

corruption, a lack of will in the government, poor technical expertise, environmental planning,

and a lack of support from the native religious authorities.

3. Pritish Indi agreed on 5 November 1914 that the uninterrupted flow of the Garuda is

the rudimentary right of Hindu believers after long struggle by the Garuda Mahasabha. The

sanctity of the agreement is not preserved by the state and central governments of Indi after

independence though it is legally valid. More and more river water is being diverted for

irrigation use, converting the river into a polluted sewer. The Garuda Action Plan (GAP) was

launched by former Prime Minister of Indi, on June 1986 with Rs 862.59 crores as expenditure.

Its main objective was to improve the water quality by the interception, diversion, and

treatment of domestic sewage and to prevent toxic and industrial chemical wastes from

identified polluting units from entering the river.

6
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

4. NRGBA was established by the Central Government of Indi, on 20 February 2009

under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It declared the Garuda as the

"National River" of Indi. The chair includes the Prime Minister of Indi and chief ministers of

states through which the Garuda flows. In 2011, the World Bank approved $1 billion in funding

for the National Garuda River Basin Authority.

5. A Public Interest Litigation was filed that the banks of the river Garuda should not be

grounds for the cremation ceremonies of the dead as it pollutes the water and the quantity of

the amount of the ashes be fixed as 10 gm for the disposal in the holy river with the direction

that the body be completely cremated as the pollution occurs right from where the river

originates to the end with the unburnt parts of the dead pollutes the water which is harmful and

unsanitary for the environment. The petitioner himself belonging to the Hindu Religion claims

that many religious rituals such as ‘Sati pratha’, ‘jauhar’, ‘nar-bali’ have been abolished by the

courts. High Court has also ordered that animals are not to be sacrificed in temples, as

protection of the Environment and Wildlife is more important than age-old holy traditions and

rituals that causes harm to our environment and promotes killing of the animals.

6. The petitioner claims that he himself being a Hindu understands the importance of

rituals but believes that it is more important to protect our surroundings and the environment

we live in and since the cremation ceremonycreates drastic pollution of the river, it is in clear

violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and The Water (Prevention and Control

of Pollution) Act, 1974 and also violates Article 21 of the Constitution of Indi.

7
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE

AGAINST UNION OF INDI?

ISSUE II: WHETHER ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI HAS BEEN

VIOLATED?

ISSUE III: WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF INDI FAILED TAKE INITIATIVE TO

PROTECT RIVER GARUDA?

8
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. Whether Public Interest Litigation is maintainable against Union of Indi?

A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement

of Fundamental Rights, as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution. It is humbly submitted

that, since Fundamental Rights of any group of Individuals have not been violated, the petition

is not maintainable. The facts stated in the PIL are vague and absurd. There are no material

authorities substantiating the claim made.

II. Whether Ancient Custom can be set aside?

Ancient Customs are protected under the Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution. There is no

Fundamental right which is per se infringed. The Customary Practices don’t fall under the

ambit of Art.13, and are a part of personal laws. The Ash Scattering is an Essential element of

Religion. This also guarantees the dignity of the deceased. This practice is also affirmed in

other nations respecting the Customary and religious value attached to the inseparable custom.

III: Whether Government of Indi failed take initiative to protect river Garuda?

The Government of Indi has introduced many legislations and introduced many action plans to

clean river Garuda. Also government made separate law which protection of flora and fauna,

took strict action against industries which are the cause of pollution

9
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED AGAINST UNION

OF INDI IS MAINTAINABLE.

1. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for

enforcement of Fundamental Rights1, as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution. In this

instant case, the writ of mandamus is filed for directing the Respondents to protect the Garuda

river from the discharges and pollutants by cremation ceremonies.2 It is of utmost importance

that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must

exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-

versed.3 The facts stated in the PIL are vague and absurd. There are no material authorities

substantiating the claim made. After the Garuda Action Plan and the Namami Ganga initiatives

taken, there are significant decrease in the levels of coliform bacteria.

2. In V. Annaraja v. The Secretary to the Union of India 4, a similar case filed for issuance

of writ of mandamus to preserve the river Adyar, the Hon’ble Supreme court has ruled that the

Petitioner had to go before the National Green Tribunal and the writ petition was dismissed.

“The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process.

Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears.

Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time

and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes”5

1
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights
asguaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
2
Para 7, Moot Proposition.
3
Para 18, S.P. Anand v. H.D Deve Gowda, 1996, SCC 734
4
V Anna raja vs The Secretary to The Union Of India (2019), Madras H.C
5
Balwant Singh Chaufal (State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal), (2010) 3 SCC 402

10
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3. In Coffee Bd. v. Jt. C.T.O,6 the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that no question other

than that relating to fundamental right will be determined in proceedings under Article 32.

Since in the present case, there has been no violation of fundamental rights, the writ petition is

not maintainable under A.32 of the Constitution.

In the instant case the Petitioner hasn’t verified with the Pollution Control Boards and has made

bald averments. Further, no scientific data per se has been provided from the side of the

petitioner to substantiate their allegations as regards to either water or environmental pollution

and hence the PIL is not maintainable.

II. WHETHER ANCIENT CUSTOM CAN BE SET ASIDE?

4. Custom can simply be explained as those long-established practices or unwritten rules

which have acquired binding or obligatory character. In ancient societies, custom was

considered as one of the most important sources of law; In fact, it was considered as the real

source of law. With the passage of time and the advent of modern civilization, the importance

of custom as a source of law diminished and other sources such as judicial precedents and

legislation gained importance. But there is no denial about the fact that custom is an important

source of law and carries utmost importance in the personal law. The Valid Custom has some

pre-requisites, namely: (a)Ancient, (b)Continuity, (c)must be Exercised, (d)a matter of right,

(e) Morality and (f)Unambiguous.

5. The Cremation ceremony referred to as the Antima Sanskar refers to the funeral rites

for the dead in Hinduism. This Customary practice where the cremation is done, and the ashes

of the deceased is scattered in a river has been in practice since time immemorial among the

Hindus and other religions of Indi. Many Scriptures and Texts do affirm this practice. The

people believe that this way of cremation ensures freedom of the Soul from Mortal remains

6
Coffee Bd. v. Jt. C.T.O, AIR 1971 SC 870, Para 1

11
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

and assures peace to the deceased.

6. The soul (Atman) is the essence and immortal that is released at the Antyeshti ritual,

but both the body and the universe are vehicles and transitory in various schools of Hinduism.

The human body and the universe consist of five elements in Hindu texts – air, water, fire, earth

and space”.7 The last rite of passage returns the body to the five elements and its origins.8 The

roots of this belief are found in the Vedas, for example in the hymns of Rigveda in section

10.16, as follows:

Don’t burn him through, Agni; don’t scorch him; don’t singe his skin, nor his body.

When you will make him cooked to readiness, Jatavedas, then impel him forth to the

forefathers. When you will have made him cooked to readiness, Jatavedas, then deliver him to

the forefathers. When he will embark on the (way) leading to (the other) life, then he will lead

at the will of the gods. Let your eye go to the sun, your life-breath to the wind. Go to heaven

and to earth as is fitting. Or go to the waters, if it has been fixed for you there. Take your stand

in the plants with your limbs. 9

7. This shows that the custom requires that the cremation process is prescribed to be done

in open space, as the Hindus believe that the soul must be open to all the natural elements. This

Custom of Cremation in open space is affirmed even in the United Kingdom. In the United

Kingdom, it was formerly illegal to conduct a traditional outdoors Hindu cremation under

the 1902 Cremation Act, with Hindus having to cremate their dead in indoor crematoriums

instead. In 2006, Daven Ghai, a British Hindu who had been refused the right to have a

traditional funeral by Newcastle City Council, brought a case to court.

7
Terje Oestigaard, in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial (Editors: Sarah Tarlow, Liv
Nilsson Stut), Oxford University Press, ISBN, pp. 497-501
8
Carl Olson (2007), The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-historical Introduction, Rutgers University
Press, ISBN 978-0813540689, pp. 99-100.
9
Jamison and Brereton (Translator)Stephanie Jamison (2015). The Rigveda –– Earliest Religious Poetry of
India. Oxford University Press. p. 1395. ISBN 978-0190633394.

12
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In the Court of Appeals in 2010, the judge, Lord Justice Neuberger, ruled that such a cremation

would be legal under the 1902 Act, performed in a building even an open-air one.10 The

Petitioner stated that he was thankful that he now had "the right to be cremated with the sun

shining on my body and my son lighting the pyre" and he and other Hindus and Sikhs in the

country had begun investigations into finding a site upon which they could perform the

funerary ceremonies.11

8. The Narasu Appa Mali12 case pertained to a petition moved by a Hindu man who was

convicted under the anti-bigamy law. Narasu Appa Mali argued that prohibition of bigamy was

enforced only for Hindus and did not apply to Muslims. This was blatantly discriminatory and

violated the concept of equality before law he said. Therefore, he petitioned the court to set

aside the law. In dealing with this case, the Bombay High Court had to interpret Article 13 of

the Constitution and whether personal laws came under its ambit. Article 13 included “all laws

in force” during the adoption of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court held that:

9. “There is no doubt that laws which are included in this expression must have been

passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority, and unless this test is satisfied

it would not be legitimate to include in this expression the personal laws merely on the ground

that they are administered by Courts in India. It is well-known that the personal laws do not

derive their validity on the ground that they have been passed or made by a Legislature or

other competent authority in the territory of India. The foundational sources of both the Hindu

and the Mahomedan laws are their respective scriptural texts. ”13.This meant that customs and

usage in personal laws not enacted by the legislature or a competent authority was beyond the

purview of Article 13.

10
Taylor, Jerome (2010-02-10). "Hindu healer wins funeral pyre battle". The Independent. London.
Retrieved 2010-04-25.
11
Roy, Amit (2010). "UK funeral rights for Hindus". The Telegraph.
12
The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53 BOMLR 779
13
Ibid.

13
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

10. In Sri Krishna Singh vs Mathura Ahir and Others,14 when dealing with the question of

whether a member of the Shudra community could enter an ascetic order when custom

prohibited it, the apex court took the side of the custom. The court, while disagreeing with the

position taken by the High Court that had heard the case previously, said:

“It would be convenient, at the outset, to deal with the view expressed by the High Court that

the strict rule enjoined by the Smriti writers as a result of which Sudras were considered to be

incapable of entering the order of yati or sanyasi, has ceased to be valid because of the

fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. In our opinion, the learned

Judge failed to appreciate that Part III of the Constitution does not touch upon the personal

laws of the parties. In applying the personal laws of the parties, he could not introduce his own

concepts of modern times but should have enforced the law as derived from recognised and

authoritative sources of Hindu law.” Thus, not only is the Bombay High Court judgment of

1951 still in force judicially, the Supreme Court has also concurred with its findings in one of

its own judgments, giving religious practices a custom legal protection.15

2.1 Protection to religious practices

11. Apart from the fact that personal laws have been given protection from the breadth of

Article 13, two other crucial Constitutional provisions protect religious practices. While Article

25 provides the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practice

and propagate one’s religion, Article 26 provides the right to every religious group to establish

and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as

per the law. All three provisions together have been the main defence to religious groups

against state intrusion into their affairs.

14
1980 AIR 707, 1980 SCR (2) 660
15
Sruthisagar Yamunan, https://scroll.in/article/887626/sabarimala-case-gives-the-supreme-court-the-chance-to-
set-right-its-inconsistency-on-personal-laws

14
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

12. In 1970, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government in Tamil Nadu allowed all

persons with the necessary qualifications, irrespective of their caste background, to become

priests in Agama temples. Traditionally, only Brahmins have been priests in such temples.

Almost every major temple in Tamil Nadu is governed by the Agamas, a collection of scriptures

relating to vital areas of Hindu life, including the conventions of temple building, philosophical

precepts and temple rituals, which protect the purity of the deity. A Constitution bench of the

Supreme Court struck down the law in 1972.

13. In its 1972 judgment, the court refused to accept arguments of untouchability in the

priest appointment process and said: “Any

State action which permits the defilement or pollution of the image by the touch of an Archaka

[priest] not authorised by the Agamas would violently interfere with the religious faith and

practices of the Hindu worshipper in a vital respect, and would, therefore, be prima facie

invalid under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.”16.In other words, the court held that following

the Agamas was an essential practice that was important for the survival of the religion itself.

In the instant case, the scattering of ashes is also a practice of religion guaranteed under the

Art.25 of the Constitution of Indi.

2.2 Essential Element of Religion

14. To define the essential elements of religion, the supreme court of India laid down the

“essential element of religion” doctrine. In

the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha

Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt case17, a line was drawn between what are the matters

16
Seshammal & Ors, Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 March, 1972
17
1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005

15
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

concerning religion and what is not. It was laid down that religious opinions and the acts done

in pursuance of those opinions, are religious practices. This implies that the Supreme court has

said that the rituals, modes of worship, and ceremonies all come under essential practices of

religion. These have to be protected to the extent that they are within the limits of Articles

25 and 26 of the Constitution of Indi.

The Cremation ceremony among Hindus is an essential element of religion. This has been

practiced from the ages on the banks of the river Garuda, which is worshipped as Goddess

Garuda in Hinduism.18

2.3 Ash Scattering in other Nations

15. Hindus and Sikhs in Britain are allowed to scatter ashes of their loved ones in

designated part of Derwent river in Northern England. After the decision of the British Court

that the burning of bodies in the open is not necessarily unlawful, this decision to allow the

scattering of ashes is been taken.19

16. Hindus in Ontario have sought a designated waterway for scattering the ashes of the

dead, and have suggested the Niagara River a possible site. "Currently, people are depositing

the ashes in bodies of water, in Lake Ontario and other places, but they are doing it in a very

unceremonious manner - with fears in their minds that they may be doing something wrong,"

said Roopnath Sharma, president of the United Hindu Federation. "Designating a river does

nothing to limit the access of the public to the body of water, but rather ensures a standardized

approach to the burial practice”, said Ron Banerjee, director of public relations with the Hindu

18
Para 1, Moot Proposition
19
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/hindus-sikhs-allowed-to-scatter-ashes-of-dead-in-uk-
river/articleshow/2223684.cms?from=mdr

16
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Conference of Canada. The Hindus and Sikhs who form a Major part of the community have

got the right to practice their religion.20

17. Even in the US, many federal States allow the scattering of ashes in the rivers and seas.

For example, Texas law states that a person may scatter cremated remains over uninhabited

public land, over a public waterway or sea, or on the private property of a consenting

owner. Texas law also states that unless the container is biodegradable, the cremated remains

must be removed from the container before being scattered.21

2.4 Right to dignity of the Deceased

18. The Right to dignity is available even to the deceased and his will must be respected

after his death. In the case of Pt. Parmanada Katara,22 the Petitioner challenged the manner in

which a death sentence was executed under the Punjab Jail Manual. The court held that

suspending a dead body for half an hour after hanging violated a prisoner’s dignity.

In Para 3 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held

“We agree with the petitioner that right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his

death.”The Law has not so far defined a person to include a dead person. It, however, has

some Rights, which cannot be detached from it, even if the body is denuded of the Life, which

together forms a human being...”23

20
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/hindus-seek-waterway-for-cremation-rituals-in-canada/story-
kZflOpjOMHWRzC4jz7nx8I_amp.html
21
https://www.neptunesociety.com/cremation-information-articles/what-are-the-laws-on-scattering-ashes
22
Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors,1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 99
23
Ramji Singh @ Mujeeb Bhai Vs. State of U.P. and others (2009) 5 Alj 376

17
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

19. The Court highlighted some of the Rights given to a dead person, such as the right of

execution of a will under the Indian Succession Act, and Rights under the Transplantation of

Human Organs Act, 1994.The Court also held that:

“The word person may not be construed narrowly so as to exclude the dead body of a human

being, who was the person, when alive, which is not claimed and which is required to be

cremated or buried with in accordance with the religious beliefs of the person, if such beliefs

can be found establishing his identity…”24

20. The Court held that it was the duty of the State to protect the Rights of dead persons

and ensure that a dead body is cremated in a decent and dignified manner, in accordance with

the religious beliefs a man kept or professed. In Pradeep Gandhy,25 the Bombay HC dealt with

the issue of disposing of a dead body of a person who succumbed to the COVID -19 virus. In

Para 38 of its judgment, the Court, while referring to Pt. Paramanand Katara, held as follows:

“Right to a decent burial, commensurate with the connected matters dignity of the individual,

is recognized as a facet of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. There

is, thus, no reason as to why an individual who dies during this period of crisis because of

suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection would not be entitled to the facilities he/she would

have otherwise been entitled to but for the crisis…”

21. The Calcutta High Court took a similar view in Vineet Ruia vs The Principal Secretary,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of West Bengal & Ors26 and laid down additional

guidelines for the disposal of dead bodies of COVID-19 victims. The abovementioned

judgments clearly indicate that a dead person has the Right to a decent burial or cremation in

24
Ibid
25
Pradeep Gandhy vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2020, W.P.(C) 3270/2020 on 28 May, 2020
26
Vineet Ruia vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 July, 2020

18
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

accordance with his/her religious beliefs, even in the midst of a pandemic. In the instant case

this rule applies as the belief of the deceased is to be considered.

22. In the case of Madhu Vijayan27, a writer, his mortal remains was ordered to be scattered

in Haridwar. The Petitioners in the case had asked to dispose the same in river Godavari, but

the Apex Court ruled that “ashes shall have to be taken by the defendant to Haridwar for

immersion in the river Ganges”.

In the instant case, the ashes scattering ceremony which is being held in the river Garuda is to

be continued without causing disturbance.

ISSUE III: WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF INDI FAILED TAKE INITIATIVE TO

PROTECT RIVER GARUDA?

The government of Indi has been taking so many initiatives to clean up river Garuda. The

government made separate provision in union budget for this purpose. The actions taken up

by government was partially successful and it’s still working towards to achieve clean

national river.

Programme Introduced by Government of Indi

3.1 Ganges Action Plan

23. The Ganges Action Plan (GAP) was June 1986 with covering 25 Class I towns (6 in

Uttar Pradesh, 4 in Bihar and 15 in West Bengal) Rs 862.59 crore were spent. Its main

objective was to improve the water quality by the interception, diversion, and treatment of

domestic sewage and to prevent toxic and industrial chemical wastes from identified

polluting units from entering the river. Notwithstanding some delay in the completion of the

first phase of the GAP, it has generated considerable interest and set the scene for evolving a

27
Sh.Madhu Vijayan and Anr. vs Sh.S.G.Ravishankar, SCC, 2006

19
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

national approach towards replicating this program for the other polluted rivers of the

country. The Government of India proposed to extend this model with suitable modifications

to the national level through a National River Action Plan (NRAP).

3.2 National River Ganga Basin Authority (NRGBA)

24. NRGBA was established by the Central Government of India, on 20 February 2009

under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It declared the Ganges as the

"National River" of India. The chair includes the Prime Minister of India and chief

ministers of states through which the Ganges flows. In 2011, the World Bank approved $1

billion in funding for the National Ganges River Basin Authority.

3.3 2010 Government clean-up campaign

25. In 2010, it was announced that "the Indian government has embarked on a $4 billion

campaign to ensure that by 2020 no untreated municipal sewage or industrial runoff enters

the 1,560-mile river."[40] A World Bank spokesman described the plan in 2011, saying

Earlier efforts to clean the Ganges concentrated on a few highly polluting towns and centres

and addressed 'end-of-the-pipe' wastewater treatment there; Mission Clean Ganga builds on

lessons from the past, and will look at the entire Gangetic basin while planning and

prioritizing investment instead of the earlier town-centric approach.[39]

3.3 Namami Gange Programme

26. In the budget tabled in Parliament on 10 July 2014, announced an integrated Ganges

development project titled 'Namami Gange' (meaning 'Obeisance to the Ganges river') and

allocated ₹2,037 crore for this purpose. The objectives were effective abatement of pollution,

conservation, and rejuvenation of the Ganges. Under the project, 8 states are covered.

Ministry of Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation proposes to make 1,674-gram panchayats

by the Ganges open defecation-free by 2022, at a cost of Rs 1,700 cr (central share). An

estimated Rs 2,958 Crores (US$460 million) have been spent till July 2016 in various efforts

20
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

in cleaning up of the river.

*As a part of the program, government of India ordered the shutdown of 48 industrial units

around the Ganges.

*The program has a budget outlay of Rs. 20,000 crore for the next five years. This is a

significant five-fold increase over the expenditure in the past 30 years (Government of India

incurred an overall expenditure of approximately Rs. 4000 crores on this task since 1985).

The center will now take over 100% funding of various activities/ projects under this

program.

27. Based on directions from the Green Tribunal, the government has issued notices to all

118 Urban Local Bodies and 687 grossly polluting industries to come up with Action Plans

on setting up sewage infrastructure and sewage treatment plants. The government has warned

of stringent action against industries that are violating pollution norms on the banks of the

river Ganga and its tributaries. The Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) instructed the

government the government to implement Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) is river Ganga basin.

Also, the government after instruction received by CPLB closed down 113 industries which

are not following the rules laid down by Central Government and initiated 230 Criminal cases

against polluters.

28. The health of Ganga River has seen significant improvement since enforcement of

the nationwide lockdown. According to the data published by CPCB out of the 36 monitoring

units placed at various points of the Ganga river, the water quality around 27 points was

suitable for bathing and propagation of wildlife and fisheries. The parameters that the

monitoring stations monitor online are dissolved oxygen (more than 6 mg/litre), biochemical

oxygen demand (less than 2 mg/litre), total coliform levels (5000 per 100 ml) and pH (range

between 6.5 and 8.5) to assess the health of the river.

21
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

29. NMCG has scientifically planned for the gap in sewage generation and treatment

capacity to take care of requirements upto 2035, estimated to be 3,600 MLD. On 2020 it has

treatment capacity exceeding 2,000 MLD which is likely to reach 3,300 MLD in the next two

years . In Uttarakhand almost entire required capacity has been now created with four STPs

in Haridwar , Rishikesh , Muni ki Reti .Even during (COVID-19) lockdown period

According to the NMCG’s data, a total of 314 projects worth Rs 28,794.27 crore sanctioned

by government out of which 124 projects have been completed. It also states that an

expenditure of Rs 8,888.19 crore (Rs. 88.88 billion) has been incurred so far (May 31, 2020).

This is clearly shows the dedication of government to clean national river and to save

vegetation around it .

Every Indian citizen has right to live in a pollution free environment and at the same time

every citizen has fundamental duty to protect and conserve nature. Until and unless citizens

take some intiative which make them not to pollute river and harm environment its toughest

task for the government and other authorities to clean 3rd largest river in the world.

22
 1ST NJ YASASWAY NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is

humbly requested that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the PIL is not maintainable before the Supreme court of Indi.

2. In the alternative declare and adjudge:

a. That the respondents have not violated the Fundamental rights or EPA and WPA

b. That the Customary practice can’t be set aside, and they are in preservation of rights

guaranteed under Art.25 and 26.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

23