Under Article 32, 136 and 139A of The Constitution of Indus Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

UU-LCD-NMCC-2021 TC-10 (R)
TC-10 (R)
LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, FACULTY OF UTTARANCHAL
UNIVERSITY 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDUS
UNDER ARTICLE 32, 136 AND 139A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS
SECTION 22 OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. AMAN & ORS..............………………………...………. PETITIONERS
V.
UNION OF INDUS & ORS.....................................................RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION N o . X X X O F 2021
APPEAL NO. XXX OF 2021
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDUS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
i
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE…………………………………………………………………………..
…….i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………….……………………ii-
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………….……….…
v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….vi-
xv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………
xvi
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………..……xvii-
xviii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………..
………….xix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………….…………xx-
xxi
AGRUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………………..………….1-
35
[1.] Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are

Maintainable?....................................1
A. The Writ Petition filed by NGO, along with Aman before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
under Article 32 is not maintainable…………………………………………….………
1
(i) The petitioner does not have a locus standi…………………………………..
…..1
(ii) There has been no violation of Fundamental
Right……………………………...2
ii
(iii) The Petitioner is required to exhaust existed alternative remedy…………….

….2
B. The Appeal by Aman against order of NGT before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not
maintainable………………………………………………………………………...….3
(i) Substantial justice has been done and the NGT dismissal is justifiable…………
3
C. The Clubbing of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 139A is not
maintainable……………………………………………………………………………4
(i) Petition filed for the tranfer of cases, not qualifying the grounds mentioned
under Article 139A of the Indus
Constitution………………………………………….4
D. The Special Leave Petition filed by Ramesh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not
maintainable…………………………………………………………………………....5
(i) Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 can always be invoked when a
question of law of general public importance arises and any Special
circumstances exist……………………………………………………………...5
[2.] Whether the non- perusal of an incomplete application under Rule 14 of the
Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 amounts to an ‘order’ or ‘determination’ within the
meaning of Section 16(j) of the NGT Act, 2010 and is hence
appealable?.............................................................................................................................6
A. Application was incomplete in nature………………………………………………….6

B. Rejection of application is justified on the ground of Purpose of the biodiversity act,
2002……………………………………………………………………………….……6
C. Authority acted in accordance with procedure established by law…………………….7
[3.] Whether Rule 14 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 is constitutionally

valid?.......................................................................................................................................9
A. Rule 14 passes the test of Art. 14………………………………………………...

…….10
i. There is an intelligible differentia in the classification………….……….

…….11
iii
ii. There is a reasonable nexus to the

object……………………………………….11
B. Rule 14 is not Arbitrary and

Unreasonable…………………………………………....12
i. Rule 14 is not Discriminatory………………………………………………………

13
ii. Rule 14 is not Disproportionate……………………………………………...

……..14
C. There is a presumption in favors of the validity of the statute…………………………

14
i. Rule 14 is not Ultravires…………………………………………………..……

15
D. Rule 14 is in consonance with Article 21 of Constitution………………………….

….15
i. Right to Life under Art. 21 is not

absolute……………………………………...17
ii. It qualifies test of substantive due process and procedure established by

law….17
iii. Quality of life, ecology and environment falls within ambit of Art.
21………...17
iv. Rule 14 is in consonance with the right to healthy

life………………………....18
E. Rule 14 is in accordance with International Principles and Norms…………….……18
[4.] Whether the NBA is a ‘State’ and whether its decisions are protected as ‘sovereign’
functions?................................................................................................................................18
A. The NBA is a State…………………………………………………………..………..19
iv
B. Decisions of NBA are protected as Sovereign

Functions……………………………...22
[5.] Whether the non-disclosure, as alleged by the Developmental Board, vitiates their
contract?..................................................................................................................................2
3
A. There was disclosure of all

grounds…………………………………………………...23
B. NBA has acted as per the terms and conditions of the
contract……………………….24
C. Government acted in accordance with public
interest………………………………....24
a) Whether acts of the NBA amount to violation of Article 29 of the

Constitution?.......25
i. No special right guaranteed to the indigenous people under the

Constitution………...26
ii. Medical use of this plant species will not harm Bholiya tribe……………………….27
[6.] Does NBA stand responsible for harm to an endangered

species?..............................28
A. Actions of NBA were guided by “Salus populi suprema lex

esto”…………………...28
B. The NBA/State is immune under Section 54 of
act…………………………………...28
C. State is not Answerable for Policy Decision taken in its Sovereign Functions…….…
28
[7.] Whether the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the implementation thereof is
constitutionally valid?............................................................................................................30
A. The epidemic disease act is in consonance with Article 14……………………….

….30
i. The Epidemic Diseases Act passes Proportionality Test….
………………….31
v
B. The implementation is in accordance with Article 21……………………………..…

32
(i) Act seeks to maintain Right to Health and values of Directive Principles….…
33
(ii) State act in accordance to social need of hour for doctrine of
necessity……..33
(iii) The Act was is in Public
Interest……………………………………………..34
C. It gives reasonable delegation to state government………………………………...…
34
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….……36
*NOTE: It is Bookmarked. Click on items (Issues) to directly jump to the respective

page.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Records

U.P. Uttar Pradesh
Art. Article
Cl. Clause
Const. Constitution
W.B. West Bengal
Hon’ble Honourable
Anr. Another
Ors. Others
Pg. Page
SCR Supreme Court Report
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
NBA National Biodiversity Authority
vi
¶ & Para. Paragraph

A.P. Andhra Pradesh
PC Privy Council
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
UOI Union of India
Co. Company
Ed. Edition
US United State
& And
Ltd. Limited
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. A. P. Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. v. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 SCC 320.
…........................................................................................................................................1
4
2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27………………………......11, 18, 16,
33
3. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC
271…………………………………………....13
4. Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat & Anr .,1975 SCR (1) 173…….
……..26
5. Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC
48…………………...20
6. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC
246………...33
7. Ambica Construction v. Union of India, (2007) 13 SCC
475………………………….....35
vii
8. Ameeroonisa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, AIR 1953 SC 91………………………...10,

11
9. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC
1539…………….1
10. Ankul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC
1……………………………...10
11. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC
1……………………………......12
12. AP Cooperative Oil Seeds Federation Limited v. D Achyuta Rao (2007) 13 SCC
320.......13
13. Arjun Gopal v UOI, AIR 2017 SC
173...............................................................................18
14. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, (2003) 9 SCALE
741……………....35
15. Ashok Kumar Thakur v UOI (2008) 6 SCC
1………………………………………….....13
16. Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P.) Ltd v. UOI, (2007) 2 SCC 640,
697……………........11
17. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34…………………………......14,
15
18. Asif Hameed and others v. State of J&K and others, AIR 1989 SC
1899………………...35
19. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 2 All
ER
680…………………………………………………………………………………......8
20. Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC
726……………………....2
21. B.B. Enterprises and Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., 2019(5) GLT
1…......9
22. Babu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC
527…………………………………………....8
23. Babulal Ahmtalal Mehta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877……...10,
11
viii
24. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336………………………………...13,

34
25. BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 3 SCC
333………………...2
26. Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC
231………………....14
27. Batterfield v Stranaham 192 US
70.....................................................................................15
28. Bhagat Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454,
460……………………....33
29. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Shri Chander Sekhar, 2013 (2) LLN 375 (DEL)
………...25
30. Bharat Sevashram Sangh and ors v. State of Gujarat and ors., (1986) 4 SCC 51…......16,
35
31. Bihar Private Technical and Professional Institutions Association and Others v. State of
Bihar And Others, 2017 (4) PLJR
975…………………………………………………....29
32. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 2967……………….....12
33. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip kumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni,
AIR 1983 SC
109……………………………………………………………………………....16
34. Bombay Dyeing and manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group,
(2006) 3 SCC
434………………………………………………………………………...27
35. Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877)2 App Cas.
666............................................24
36. Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191……………....12,
13
37. Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, (1992) 1 LLN
353.
…………………………………………………………………………………………....1
6
ix
38. Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC
1044…………………….....2
39. Central Coat Fields v. State of M.P., AIR 1986 MP
33………………………………….....4
40. Centre for PIL and Another v. Union of India and Another, AIR 2011 SC
1267………...30
41. CERC v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC
922…………………………………………….....19
42. Chabungam Ibohal Singh v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC
83…………………………....13
43. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC
549……………………………...16
44. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 Mad.
120……………………......11
45. Charanjit Lal v Union of India AIR 1951 SC
41 ................................................................15
46. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Ors v. State of A.P and Ors., AIR 2020 SC
384………...16
47. Chiranjit Lal Chwodhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC
41…………………………...10
48. Chunilal v. Mehta, AIR 1962 SC
1314………………………………………………….....4
49. Civil Services Union v. Minister for Civil Services, I (1983) ACC
768…………………....8
50. Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC
870……………………………………………...1
51. Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn, (2007) 4 SCC 669…....15,
32
52. Col. A.S. Iyer v. Balasubramanyam, AIR 1980 SC
452…………………………………...6
53. Commissioner of Services Tax v. Sri Selvaganapathy & Co, (2018) 4 SCC
578…………..5
x
54. Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland,
(2006) 1 SCC 496…………………………………………………………………...
…......3
55. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC
42................34
56. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC
635……….5
57. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC
305……………………………………......12
58. Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114……………..
…………………...2
59. DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC
2414…………………………………………….....4
60. Delip Shankar Koli v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Cri. LJ
500………………………….....8
61. Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology and Anr., (2004) 9
SCC
676…………………………………………………………………………………....6
62. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65……………….
…....5
63. Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712 (paragraph 56) ……………….....11,
14
64. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC
519………………………………….......9
65. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and Anr., AIR 2014 SC
2140………………...31
66. E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC
3...................................................................13
67. Essar Steel Ltd. v. Union of India and ors., (2016) 11 SCC
1………………………….....17
68. Express Newspapers Ltd v Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578, p
623…………………....15
xi
69. Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC

715………..2
70. Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC
289......................30
71. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC
344……………………...1
72. Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC
608………......16
73. G Sundarrajan Versus Union of India And Others, (2013) 6 SCC
620…………………...29
74. G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1975 SC
583..................................................15
75. Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2010) 10 SCC
96…………………………....16
76. Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC
1……………………………………………...1
77. Gopal Krishnayya v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1959 AP
292.......................................15
78. Gopal Narain v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979 Jab LJ
682…………………………......15
79. Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC
609………………………………....10
80. Graham v Van Wyck 14 Barb
53……………………………………………………........16
81. H.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC
658………………………………………..10
82. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731……………………………….....12,
15
83. Hans Muller of Nurenberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Ors., AIR
1955 SC
367……………………………………………………………………………………..1
84. Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, AIR 2006 SC
2234……………………………….....3
xii
85. Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, (2007) 4 All ER 15 (HL) para 19 p
29....32
86. India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology and Anr. (2004) 9 SCC
676………....7
87. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) SCC
1……………………………………….31
88. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC
477.........................................................10
89. Indrajit Barua v. The State of Assam and Ors., AIR 1983 Del.
513……………………....16
90. Issac Isangha Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC
357...............................18
91. Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors, (2007) 14 SCC
517………………………........9
92. Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1978 Cri. LJ 760 (P &
H) ...................................................8
93. Jalan Trading Co Pvt Ltd v Mill Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1967 SC
691……………………..15
94. Javed v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC
3057………………………………………….....14
95. Jolly George v. Bank of Cochin, 1980 SC
470…………………………………………....33
96. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. UOI and Ors. (2019) 1 SCC 1………………...13,
17
97. K. R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2001) 1 SCC
442..................................11
98. K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors AIR 2001 SC
467……………..13
99. K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC
481………………………………………………...2
100. Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC
1159………………………....3
xiii
101. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC

569………………………………......12
102. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC
1992…………………....34
103. Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. v. State of Madras and Ors., AIR 1960 SC
1080………………………………………………………………………………......12,
17
104. Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404............................11,
32
105. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC
225………………………......18
106. Khinvdan v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 Cri. LJ 1984 1985 (Raj)
…………………….....8
107. Krishna Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 2 SCJ
136 ....35
108. KSRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC
409…………………………………........9
109. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC
3127………………………………....13
110. Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC
228…………………………..12
111. Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC
359……......4
112. Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker. 161…………………….....17,
18
113. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Deptt. of Trade, 1977 QB 643: (1977) 2 WLR
234…………..30
114. Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC
873…………………….....12
115. Legal Heris of Decd. Umedmiya R Rathod & 5 Versus State of Gujarat Lnind 2017
Guj 2091…………………………………………………………………………………...
….23
xiv
116. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. General Secretary and Ors, (2012) IILLJ 317
Guj………………………………………………………………………………………....
8
117. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC
1886……………………………......18
118. M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 2005
SC1309…….....3
119. M. R. F. Limited v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC
227………….....12
120. M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Union of India, (2003) 2 GLR
358………………......9
121. Magan Bhai v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCC
400……………………………………..2
122. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597………………………...7, 16,
18
123. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 2 SCR
378……………….....5
124. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311,
354...............................15
125. Matthews v Ministry of Defence, (2003) 1 All ER 689, p 723 (HL)
………………....32
126. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC
597………………………………...33
127. Mihir alias Bhikari Charan Sahu v. State, (2005) Cri LJ
488…………………….......18
128. Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC
59……………………….....16
129. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.,
1995 SCC (2)
161………………………………………………………………………...24
130. Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC
748............................................3
xv
131. Mohd. Usman v. State of A.P., (1971) 2 SCC

188........................................................32
132. Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC
65………….6
133. N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs. State of AP., AIR 1994 SC 2663.............................23,
24
134. N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC
1234……………………........18
135. Narsing Das v Chogemull AIR 1939 Cal
435………………………………………...15
136. Natural Resources Allocations, (2012) 10 SCC 1………………….
………………...10
137. O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph (1962) IILLJ 615
SC………………………………….....17
138. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180…………….....16,
27
139. Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC
386…………………………………......13
140. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC
2562……………………………......14
141. P. Janardhan v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Mysore
171……………………………....16
142. P. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1999) 2 GLR
1422………………………………....19
143. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India and Ors.,
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15043 of
2015……………………………………………..7
144. Pannalal Binjraj v Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397,
408……………………….......14
145. Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Limited, AIR 1995 SC 2200………......9,
34
146. Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCR
997…………………………....19
xvi
147. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC
37…...19
148. Patel Shreyas Kumar Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2020 Guj. 421.....33,
35
149. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and ors. v. RBI, (1996) 1 SCC
753………………………………………………………………………………………..1
6
150. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC
1442……......15,16
151. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, (1988) 1 SCR
732…………………………....3
152. Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 286………………
33
153. R (JF) v Secretary of State, (2010) 2 All ER 707 (U K
SC) ........................................32
154. R v A, (2001) 3 All ER 1
(HL) .....................................................................................32
155. R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept ex parte Daly, (2001) 3 All ER 433,
(HL) ......................................................................................................................................
......32
156. R v Shayler, (2002) 2 All ER 477,498, 506 (HL)
…………………………………....32
157. R v. Goldsmith, (1983) 1 WLR 151,
155…………………………………………......14
158. R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC
324............................................11
159. R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India, 1979 SCR (3)
1014……………………….20
160. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
……...35
161. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (2007)1 SCC
70…………………………………….......9
xvii
162. Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC
1…………………...2
163. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R Tendolkar, (1959) SCR
279…………………....31
164. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors.,
(1979) 3 SCR
1014……………………………………………………………………………....31
165. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, KAIRana, AIR 1950 SC
163…………………....3
166. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 1
SCC
642………………………………………………………………………………......12
167. Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP, (2013) 2 SCC
357..............................................................9
168. Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) v. Union of India and Anr., (2015) 9 SCALE
68……….6
169. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC
248………………….......11
170. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC
1...............................................................26
171. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC
295……………………...1
172. Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India, AIR 2005 SC
3353……………...33
173. Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Others, AIR 2020 SC
1064……………......18
174. Sant Lal Bharti v. State of Punjab AIR 1988 SC
485………………………………....14
175. Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC
179………………………….....3
176. Sarda v. Dharmpal, AIR 2003 SC
3450........................................................................18
xviii
177. Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed vs. Shirdi Nagar (2016) 4

SCC…………………………...29
178. Secretary, Govt. of India v. Alka Shubhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3)
583…………..2
179. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Bombay Stock Exchange Brokers Forum,
(2001) 3 SCC
482……………………………………………………………………….....4
180. Shalini Rawat v. State, 1998 Cri. LJ
1815………………………………………….......8
181. Shankar Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar and Ors, 2012(3) PLJR
451..............................9
182. Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, AIR 1990 SC
630……………….....16
183. Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2017 SC
150………………..7
184. Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2002) 2 SCC
188…………....13
185. Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC
366……………………....32
186. Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others, (2017) 9 SCC
1………………………....35
187. Shimnit Utsch India Pvt Ltd. and Anr. v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. and ors., (2010) 6 SCC
303……………………………....17
188. Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
1314……………………………………………………………………………………......
3
189. Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403,
411……………………………......18
190. Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Co. Ltd, AIR 1962 SC
1314…………………………......4
191. State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co. (1996) 3 SCC
709………………………………....13
xix
192. State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., 3 SCC 709 (1996)
………………….....13
193. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318…………………………........11,
34
194. State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC
1277………………………....5
195. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Ganga Singh AIR 1960 SC 356, p.
359………………...5
196. State of Kerala And Another v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit
and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of
2001……………………………………….....27
197. State of Kerela v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC
310………………………………......11
198. State of M.P. v. Bharath Singh, AIR 1967 SC
1170……………………………….....27
199. State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., (1964) 6 SCR 846,
850…………........11
200. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mandavar, AIR 1955 SC
493...........................................14
201. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC
196………………………………….......14
202. State of MP v Kedia Leather and Liquor Limited AIR 2003 SC
727……………........18
203. State of Punjab and ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and ors., (1998) 4 SCC
117………...34
204. State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, AIR 1997 SC 1225……………………………..16,
19
205. State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, AIR 1995 SC
2114…………………….......14
206. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushailiya and Ors., AIR 1964 SC
416…………………....13
207. State of West Bengal v. Ratnagiri Engineering Private Limited, (2010) 4 SCC
453…...2
xx
208. State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC
75......................................32
209. Stephen’s college v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC
558…………………….........18
210. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2016) 15 SCC
631………..19
211. Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC
326……………………………....2
212. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC
1……………………........18
213. Sutherland, Statutory Construction, vol 2 at 2419,
2………………………………....15
214. T Devadasan v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179,
pg.185……………………….......11
215. T. Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad AIR 1987 AP
171……………...17
216. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481………...
…………..18
217. The Court on its own motion v. Union of India, (2012) 12 SCALE
307………….......18
218. The Federated State School Teachers Association of Australia v. The State of
Victoria (1929) 41 CLR
569.............................................................................................................23
219. Tigner v. Texas, (1940) AC
12……………………………………………………......32
220. Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1990 SC
123...........................31
221. U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijai Narain, (1987) 3 SCC
395………………….20
222. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn. (2001) 3 SCC
635……………………….....30
223. Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC
1573………………………....3
xxi
224. Union of India v. M.V. Valliappan, (1996) 6 SCC

259…………………………….....13
225. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC
510………………………………......18
226. Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC
4622………………………………...2
227. Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu And Others Lnindord, (2020) MAD
160......29
228. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI and Ors., AIR 1996 SC
2721……………....17
229. Vincent v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990…………………………………......16,
34
230. Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) SCC CRI
932………………………………...19
231. Welfare Association v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358 (paragraph
60) ..................11
ARTICLES AND JOURNALS
1. Ahmed, Remedy of Compensation under Article 32, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (July 7
2020) https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2570/Remedy-of-Compensation-under-
Article-32.html
2. Prashanti, Compensatory Jurisprudence in India, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (July 4
2020) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2035/Compensatory-Jurisprudence In-
India.html
3. Minorities under international law, United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (July 08 2020)
4. Ashish Yadav, Contractual Liabilty Of State in India: A Comparative Analysis, Volume
4 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS AND ALLIED
ISSUES 72 (2018)
5. Government Contracts: The Defense of Sovereign Acts: Contracts. "Sovereign Acts" as a
Defense. United States Government, Volume 8 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 284 (1956)
6. Megha Purohit, Mayank Purohit, An Analysis of Non-Refoulement In Indian Legal
Framework, Volume 2 JAMIA LAW JOURNAL 167 (2017)
xxii
7. Sonali Mahajan, Contractual Liability of State in India- An Analysis, Volume 2

RESEARCH HUB – INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
JOURNAL 1(2015)
BOOKS
1. 1&2 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: WITH CONSTITUTIONAL

DOCUMENTS (6th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,2010)
2. 1&2 DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (AR Lakshmanan,
V.R. Manohar & Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee ed.,14th Edition, Lexis Nexis,2009)
3. 1,2&3 SAMARADITYA PAL, INDIA’S CONSTITUTION ORIGINS AND
EVOLUTION (Lexis Nexis, 2014)
4. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH Edition., Central Law
Publication, 1991)
5. J. BEATSON, A. BURROWS & J. CARTWRIGHT, ANSON’S LAW OF CONTRACT
(29th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2010)
6. MINORITY RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION (United Nations, 2010)
7. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th Edition., Lexis Nexis,2018.)
8. N S BINDRA, BINDRA’S INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (M N Rao and Amita
Dhanda, 10th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,2007)
9. MAMTA RAO, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (4th Edition, Eastern Book
company, 2015).
10. H.K SAHARAY, DUTT ON CONTRACT (11TH Edition, eastern law house, 2013)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
 UDHR
 ICCPR
 IUCN
 UNCBD
LEGAL DATABESES
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
xxiii
3. www.heinonline.com
4. www.jstor.com
5. www.lexisnexis.com
LEXICON
 Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edition, 2009)

 Oxford Dictionary of Law (2006)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
xxiv
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indus has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art. 32, 136,
139A of the Constitution of Indus and Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
which reads as follows:
 Article 32 of the Constitution: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part

III of the Constitution
 Article 136 of the Constitution: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
 Article 139A of the Constitution: Transfer of certain cases
 Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Appeal to Supreme Court - Any
person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the tribunal, may, file an appeal to
the Supreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communication of the award,
decision or order of Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in
section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the
Supreme Court may, entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety days, if it is satisfied
that the appellant was prevented by sufficience cause from preferring the appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
xxv
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Indus, a country possesses one of the richest biodiversities in the world. The country has
been traditionally very rich in natural wealth having diverse and abundant flora and fauna,
however, during the two centuries of colonial rule, its natural wealth was substantially
plundered by the colonial rulers through the use of biased administrative orders and
legislations. Even after independence, Indus has been very rich in its natural wealth, with
enormity of flora and fauna and for a long time, neither Central Government of Indus nor the
State Governments paid much attention for preserving and protecting its forests, rich in
biodiversity. It is a State-party to all mainstream and crucial biodiversity-related International
Conventions, viz., the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or the Bonn
Convention). In furtherance of the objectives agreed to by Indus under these Conventions,
the Parliament enacted the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
ISSUES CONCERNED
Mr. Aman, a scientist who worked part-time with the company’s laboratories, while
dedicating his remaining time in research, owing to his strong acumen towards it. New
disease arrived that is the medical community termed this condition/disease as ‘Bloodfire’.
Mr. Aman, after hearing this news, started reading intensively about the familia of the
causative virus. His research pointed that some medicinal plants in the Himalayan forests,
which is one of the globally identified biodiversity hotspots, shall positively culminate in
creating the cure for Bloodfire. He tried to acquire small quantities of this plant but failed to
do so. He was not allowed by the police to proceed to Himalayan Region, given the strict
lockdown. Consequently, Mr. Aman made an application to the National Biodiversity
Authority of Indus in a manner provided under Form I of the Biological Diversity Rules,
2004. However, since he did not possess the amount of fees specified in the Rules, he
included an additional application for the waiver of fees. Around the same time, a U.S.
Pharmaceutical Company ‘Tiscola’ applied for acquiring another specie of Astragalus and
this company got access. There is an NGO, named ‘Spreading Smiles’ dedicated to pro-bono
medical care for children, contacted him. He explained his situation to them. The NGO,
along with Mr. Aman, also filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutional validity of Rule 14(2) of the Rules.
xxvi
The Bholiya Tribe is an indigenous tribe in the foothills of Himalayas. Jemej (scientific
name, Begonia fonli), a plant grown only in certain regions of Himalayas by the Bholiyas is
used in the preparation of a unique and effective remedy for high fever and chills.
Dissatisfied, the BDB appealed against this determination in the High Court of Himachal,
under Section 52 of the Act, within the prescribed time. The Board claimed that important
information was withheld by the agents of the NBA (Mr. Simon and the Committee), and
that irreparable loss to the Bholiya livelihood and culture vitiates the very essence of the
agreement. The BDB also filed a separate writ petition before the High Court against the
NBA, praying for directions to stop the excessive uprooting of the Jemej fields.
Ramesh is a citizen of Indus and a resident of New Dalias. Bloodfire had severely affected
this part of the country as a result of the spread of the communicable disease, the
Government of New Dalias had announced and notified a regulation. Deriving authority from
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, it allows “authorized persons” from taking action against a
person violative of these Rules. Ramesh challenged the constitutional validity of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the imposition thereof, in the High Court of New Dalias
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indus and then appeal to Supreme Court.
All the matter, while pending before the Apex Court, has been clubbed with the
aforementioned matters and the Court shall hear them together.
xxvii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE- 1
Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are Maintainable?
ISSUE- 2
Whether the non- perusal of an incomplete application under Rule 14 of the Biological
Diversity Rules, 2004 amounts to an ‘order’ or ‘determination’ within the meaning of
Section 16(j) of the NGT Act, 2010 and is hence appealable?
ISSUE- 3
Whether Rule 14 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 is constitutionally valid?
ISSUE- 4
Whether the NBA is a ‘State’ and whether its decisions are protected as ‘sovereign’
functions?
ISSUE- 5
Whether the non-disclosure, as alleged by the Developmental Board, vitiates their

contract?
a. Whether the acts of the NBA amount to violation of Article 29 of the Constitution?
ISSUE- 6
Does NBA stand responsible/accountable for harm to an endangered species?
ISSUE- 7
Whether the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the implementation thereof is
constitutionally valid?
xxviii
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
[1.] Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are Maintainable?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that all Petitions in the instant case are not
maintainable. To that effect, the Respondents seeks to establish that; (A) The Writ Petition
filed by NGO, along with Aman before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 is not
maintainable; (B) The Appeal by Aman against order of NGT before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court is not maintainable; (C) The Clubbing of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
Article 139A is not maintainable and (D) The SLP filed by Ramesh before Supreme Court is
not maintainable.
[2.] Whether the non- perusal of an incomplete application under Rule 14 of the
meaning of Section 16(j) of the NGT Act, 2010 and is hence appealable?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the rejection of application is justified
on the ground of procedural established by law. It’s the respondent contention that the
rejection of application was done because (A) Application was incomplete in nature. Here
the petitioner failed to act in accordance with rule 14(2) of Biological Diversity Rule, 2004
(hereinafter referred to as, The Rule). (B) Rejection of application is justified on the ground
of Purpose of the biodiversity act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as The Act), and (C) The
respondent Acted in accordance with procedural established by law.
[3.] Whether Rule 14 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 is constitutionally valid?
It is humbly submitted that the the Rule 14 of the Biological Rules, 2004 is constitutionally
valid. To that effect, the Respondent seeks to establish that, (A) Rule 14 passes the test of
Art. 14 as (i) There is an intelligible differentia in the classification and (ii) There is a
reasonable nexus to the object; (B) Rule 14 is not Arbitrary and Unreasonable as (i) Rule 14
is not Discriminatory and (ii) Rule 14 is not Disproportionate; (C) There is a presumption in
favors of the validity of the statute as (i) Rule 14 is not Ultravires; (D) Rule 14 is in
consonance with Article 21 of Constitution as (i) Right to Life under Art. 21 is not absolute,
(ii) It qualifies test of substantive due process and procedure established by law, (iii) Quality
of life, ecology and environment falls within ambit of Art. 21 and (iv) Rule 14 is in
xxix
consonance with the right to healthy life and; (E) Rule 14 is in accordance with International
Principles and Norms.
[4.] Whether the NBA is a ‘State’ and whether its decisions are protected as ‘sovereign’
functions?
It is humbly submitted that the NBA is a ‘State’ (A), and Secondly, Decisions of NBA are
Protected as Sovereign Functions of the State (B).
[5.] Whether the non-disclosure, as alleged by the Developmental Board, vitiates their
contract?
It is humbly submitted that there was disclosure of all grounds and there is no vitiation of
contract. To that effect, the Respondent seeks to establish that, (A) There was disclosure of
all the grounds; (B) NBA has acted as per the terms and conditions of the contract and (C)
Government acted in accordance with public interest.
a. Whether the acts of the NBA amount to violation of Article 29 of the Constitution?
It is humbly submitted that the acts of NBA don’t amount to violation of Article 29 of the
Constitution as (i) No special right guaranteed to the indigenous people under the
Constitution and (ii) Medical use of this plant species will not harm Bholiya tribe
[6.] Does NBA stand responsible/accountable for harm to an endangered species?
It is humbly submitted that NBA is not responsible for harm to an Endangered Species. To
that effect, Respondent seeks to establish that, (A) Actions of NBA were guided by “Salus
populi suprema lex esto”; (B) The NBA/State is immune under Section 54 of act and (C)
State is not Answerable for Policy Decision taken in its Sovereign Functions.
[7.] Whether the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the implementation thereof is
It is humbly submitted that the Epidemic Disease Act is not arbitrary, and implementation in
pursuance of such order does not amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights. To that
effect, the respondent seeks to establish that, (A) The epidemic disease act is in consonance
with Article 14 as (i) The Epidemic Diseases Act passes Proportionality Test; (B) The
implementation does not violate any fundamental rights as it is in accordance with Article 21
as (i) The act seeks to maintain Right to Health and values of Directive Principles, (ii) State
xxx
needs to act in accordance with social need of hour to fulfils doctrine of necessity and (iii)
The Act was is in Public Interest and; (C) It gives reasonable delegation to state government.
xxxi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are Maintainable?
[¶1] It’s the Respondent Contention that all Petitions in the instant case are not maintainable.
To that effect, the Respondents seeks to establish that; (A) The Writ Petition filed by NGO,
along with Aman before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 is not maintainable;
(B) The Appeal by Aman against order of NGT before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not
maintainable; (C) The Clubbing of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 139A
is not maintainable and (D) The SLP filed by Ramesh before Supreme Court is not
maintainable.
(A) The Writ Petition filed by NGO, along with Aman before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court under Article 32 is not maintainable
(i) The petitioner does not have a locus standi
[¶2] Locus standi means a place of standing, a right of appearance in a Court of Justice. It
signifies the right to bring an action and to be heard. 1 No action lies in the Supreme Court
under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right,2 as the Supreme Court
has previously emphasized that “The violation of Fundamental Right is sine qua non of
exercise of right conferred by Art. 32.”3 In Hans Muller of Nurenberg v. Superintendent,
Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Ors.,4 the Supreme Court held that only a person aggrieved can
impugn any given piece of legislation under Art. 32. It is humbly submitted that, per curiam
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal,5 courts must restrict free flow of case under
attractive name of writ.
[¶3] Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 can be invoked only when Fundamental
Right has been infringed.6 No question other than relating to a Fundamental Right will be
determined in a proceeding under Art. 32.7 Thus, where there is no infringement of
Fundamental Right or scope for enforcement of any Fundamental Right, the writ petition is
1
Aiyar Ramanatha, P., Concise Law Dictionary, LexisNexis Buttersworth Wadhwa Nagpur, 2009.
2
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539.
3
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344.
4
Hans Muller of Nurenberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Ors., AIR 1955 SC 367.
5
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295.
6
Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1.
7
Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC 870.
1
not maintainable on the fragile ground.8 In addition to this, a person acquires a locus standi,
when he has to have a personal or individual right which has been violated or threatened to
be violated.9 Since, no right of petitioner has been infringed, he has no locus standi before the
Court. Where writ petition is challenging the Constitutional validity of any provision, then
the petitioner should file writ petition before High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 10
Mere apprehension that the petitioner would be deprived of his Fundamental Right is not
enough to invoke jurisdiction of Court under Art. 32.11 Unless satisfactory reasons are there
in this regard, filing of petition in such matters directly under Art. 32 of Constitution is to be
discouraged.12
(ii) There has been no violation of Fundamental Right
[¶4] When a person acquires a locus standi, he has to have a personal right which was
violated or threatened to be violated. 13 In BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. UOI,14 Court
held that only ground on which a person can maintain a writ is where there has been an
element of violation of Article 21. There cannot be any such thing as absolute or
uncontrolled liberty wholly freed from restraint for that would lead to anarchy and disorder. 15
In the instant case, there was neither violation Article 21 nor violation of Article 14 of the
Indus Constitution.
(iii) The petitioner is required to exhaust existed alternative remedy
[¶5] Article 32 confers “extraordinary” jurisdiction, which is used where there is no alternate
efficacious remedy is available.16 The reason for this is: first, to reduce increasing pendency
of cases17 and second, to inspire faith in hierarchy of Courts and institution as a whole. The
power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power vested in the hands on this
Court.18 This Hon’ble Court has itself imposed a self-restraint on exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 32 where party invoking jurisdiction has an adequate alternative remedy in
8
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 715.
9
Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
10
State of West Bengal v. Ratnagiri Engineering Private Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 453.
11
Magan Bhai v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCC 400; Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326.
12
Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
13
Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
14
BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 3 SCC 333.
15
Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1.
16
Secretary, Govt. of India v. Alka Shubhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583; Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726.; Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
17
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
18
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481.; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114
2
form of Article 226, although this Rule is a Rule of convenience and discretion not Rule of
law.19 It is well settled proposition of law that existence of alternative adequate remedy is a
factor taken into consideration in writ petition.20
[¶6] In Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat,21 the Supreme Court held that a petitioner
claiming of infraction of his fundamental right should approach High Court rather Supreme
Court in the first instance as High Court under Art. 226 has much wider than the powers of
the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 22 It was held by the Hon'ble Court in
the case of Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of
Nagaland,23 that the writ petitions should be agitated at the first instance before the High
Court of Judicature exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(B) The Appeal by Aman against order of NGT before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
not maintainable
(i) Substantial justice has been done and the NGT dismissal is justifiable
[¶7] It is humbly contended that the substantial justice has been done and it has to be kept in
mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the
litigation.24 Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law
in force at the relevant time. It cannot be decided merely on equitable grounds. As per the
test laid down under Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd.,25
to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved is an open question in the
sense that there is no scope for interference by the court with a finding recorded when such
finding could be treated to be a finding of fact; 26 if the question has been well- settled by the
Highest Court and it is merely a question of applying the settled principles in determination
of the matter.27 If it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any
judicial standard, the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline require the
Supreme Court to intervene28; the Supreme Court in this case pointed out the errors of the
19
Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, (2009) 12 SCC 748.
20
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, KAIRana, AIR 1950 SC 163.
21
Kanubhai Brahmbhatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159.
22
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, (1988) 1 SCR 732.
23
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland, (2006) 1 SCC 496.
24
Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, AIR 2006 SC 2234.
25
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
26
M. Janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 2005 SC1309.
27
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314; See also, Santosh
Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179.
28
Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573.
3
High Court, but, did not interfere in the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court does
not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal if it has taken all the relevant
factors into consideration and there has been no misapplication of the principles of law.29
[¶8] If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principle to be determining
the question are well settled, and there is mere question of applying the principle, or the plea
is palpably absurd, the question would not be substantial question of law. 30 In Kunhayammed
and Others v. State of Kerala and Another,31 it was held that a petition seeking grant of
special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons the question raised by the
petitioner for consideration by this Court is not fit for consideration or deserving being dealt
with by the Apex Court. However, in the present case the dismissal of petition is justifiable.
(C) The Clubbing of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 139A is not
maintainable
(i) Petition filed for the transfer of cases, not qualifying the grounds mentioned under
Article 139A of the Indus Constitution
[¶9] It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that the petition filed by the petitioner
for the transfer and clubbing of cases is not qualifying with the grounds mentioned in the
Article 139A as such questions are substantial questions of general importance, Supreme
court may withdraw the cases pending before High courts. However, in the present case
petitions pending before the High Court not involving any reasonable circumstances that
making transfer of cases mandatory so, these petitions must not be transferred to Supreme
Court. In Central Coat Fields v. State of M.P.,32 Court rejected prayer for transfer of petitions
pending in various High Courts to itself though points for determination were same as those
pending before Supreme Court.
[¶10] A better course was adopted in Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Bombay
Stock Exchange Brokers Forum,33 where the Court while transferring some matters to itself,
stayed hearing on other petitions in the High Courts on similar issues, but granted liberty to
apply for intervention in transferred cases. In Commissioner of Services Tax v. Sri
29
DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414.
30
Chunilal v. Mehta, AIR 1962 SC 1314; Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Co. Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 1314.
31
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359.
32
Central Coat Fields v. State of M.P., AIR 1986 MP 33.
33
Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Bombay Stock Exchange Brokers Forum, (2001) 3 SCC 482.
4
Selvaganapathy & Co.,34 where it was held that “ground that same issue is pending before
Court is not sufficient ground for transfer of writ proceedings from High Court to this Court.
Furthermore, in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, 35 the Supreme Court
pointed out as to when the Court can exercise the power of transfer. Justice Krishna Iyer
observed as follows: "Assurance of a fair trial is first imperative of dispensation of justice
and the central criterion for the court to consider when motion for transfer is made is not
hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or
like mine-grievances. Something more substantial more compelling, more imperilling from
the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is
to exercise its power of transfer. In Casu, in the instant case, High Court is competent enough
to entertain the Petitions pending before it.
(D) The Special Leave Petition filed by Ramesh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
not maintainable
(i) Jurisdiction under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question of law of general
public importance arises and any Special circumstances exist
[¶11] It is humbly contended before this court that the appeal lies to Supreme Court if the
High Court certifies that (a) that case involves substantial question of law of general
importance; and (b) that in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be
decided by the Supreme Court36 and in instant case both conditions are not fulfilling which is
sufficient to say that instant petition is not maintainable. Further it is not maintainable
because no any exceptional circumstances exist and if there is no interference, it will result in
substantial and grave injustice and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant
review of the decision appealed against, on merits. Only then the Court would exercise its
overriding powers.37 Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or
when substantial justice is done, though the decision might suffer from some legal errors. 38
The provision does not give right to the party to appeal to the Supreme Court rather it confers
a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. 39 The
34
Commissioner of Services Tax v. Sri Selvaganapathy& Co, (2018) 4 SCC 578
35
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 2 SCR 378.
36
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Ganga Singh AIR 1960 SC 356, p. 359.
37
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 576 (16th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur 2011); See
also, The Constitution of Indus, 1950.
38
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, (1989) 4 SCC 635; See also, State of H. P. v.
Kailash Chand Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277.
39
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65.
5
Supreme Court would interfere in the finding of the fact by the High Court only when there
is a grave error.40 In the case at hand, no exceptional and special circumstances have been
shown by the petitioner. The High Court of New Dalias in the instant case has very
judiciously decided the case and dismissed the petition.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that all the Petitions in the instant case are not maintainable.
2. Whether the non- perusal of an incomplete application under Rule 14 of the

meaning of Section 16(j) of the NGT Act, 2010 and is hence appealable?
[¶12] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the rejection of application is
justified on the ground of procedural established by law. It’s the respondent contention that
the rejection of application was done because (A) Application was incomplete in nature. Here
the petitioner failed to act in accordance with rule 14(2) of Biological Diversity Rule, 2004
(hereinafter referred to as, The Rule). (B) Rejection of application is justified on the ground
of Purpose of the biodiversity act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as The Act), and (C) The
respondent Acted in accordance with procedural established by law.
(A) Application was incomplete in nature
[¶13] In the case of Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) v. Union of India and Anr.41 it is ascertained
that the application at the first instance is required to be complete and incomplete
applications are liable to be rejected. Further it was also laid down in Dental Council of India
v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology and Anr.,42 that incomplete applications cannot
even be processed by the Respondents.43 In Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India
and Ors.,44 it was laid down that for establishment of new medical colleges/increase in intake
capacity, application should be filed within the prescribed period and only such applications
which are complete in all respects, have to be treated as applications under Section 10A of
the Act, 1956.45 In the instant case applicant failed to pay the prescribed fee which is
explicitly stated under rule 14(2) of The Rule. Hence this application was also treated
incomplete.
40
Col. A.S. Iyer v. Balasubramanyam, AIR 1980 SC 452.
41
Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) v. Union of India and Anr., (2015) 9 SCALE 68.
42
Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology and Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 676
43
Ibid.
44
Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 65.
45
S.10A, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
6
(B) To fulfill the purpose of the act
[¶14] In Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India and Ors.46
It was submitted by the MCI that the criteria set out in the Establishment of Medical College
Regulations, 1999 is also required to be fulfilled. The schedule thereof prescribes the time
schedule. The rejection of the application is appropriate as incomplete applications cannot be
entertained.47 While in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi48 hon’ble SC clearly
stated that IT Act is a special enactment. It is a special provision for a specific purpose and
the Act has to be given effect to so as to make protection effective and true to legislative
intent.49
[¶15] Similarly, with respect to the Biodiversity act countries are under pressure to have laws
and policies in place through which benefit sharing can be carried out once access is
permitted. The absence of a working system for ABS puts governments of biodiversity-rich
countries at the risk of not being able to claim their “benefits;” which is also how ABS rules
and regulations are justified by states to their domestic constituencies. In the instant case
incomplete application was not taken into consideration in the light of the purpose of the act.
(C) Authority acted in accordance with procedural established by law.
[¶16] The expression “procedure established by law” means procedure laid down by statute
or procedure prescribed by the law of the state 50. The SC in Maneka Gandhi,51 has laid down
a triple test for any law to be considered to be in accordance with the ‘Procedure established
by law’: (1) The law must prescribe a procedure (2) the procedure must satisfy the
requirements of Arts. 14 and 19 (3) And, it should be just, fair and reasonable.
[¶17] The process of the courts or the process of law should not be allowed to subvert the
law. An incomplete application cannot be processed either by the Central Government or the
Dental Council.52 The Court had laid down that incomplete applications cannot even be
46
Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India and Ors., Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 15043 of 2015.
47
¶ 4, Ibid.
48
Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2017 SC 150.
49
¶ 1, Ibid.
50
V.N. Shukla; Constitution of India 11th ed. P.199.
51
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
52
¶ 10, India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology and Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 676.
7
processed by the Central Government or the Dental Council. Application at the first instance
is required to be complete and incomplete applications are liable to be rejected.53
[¶18] While in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. General Secretary and
Ors.54 The HC while referring Civil Services Union v. Minister for Civil Services 55 and
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation 56 stated that the
position in our country in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms are involved,
is that the Courts/Tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary judgment as to
reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority. The secondary
judgment of the Court is to be based on Wednesbury the CCSU principles as stated by Lord
Greene and Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or administrative authority has
reasonably arrived at his decision as the primary authority.57
(i) Public Interest Will Always Superssed Private Interest
[¶19] In case of a conflict between accused person‘s right of personal liberty and interest of
public justice and welfare objectives of society, the former should be subordinated to the
latter.58 Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly of importance but the same has to be in a matter as
of a serious nature balanced with security of the community. 59 There is no gainsaying fact
that a citizen‘s liberty should receive paramount consideration in all situations and the same
can be denied to him for very cogent reasons and only when it absolutely necessary in the
interest of justice and the bail provisions are undoubtedly, designed to achieve the aforesaid
objective.60
[¶20] The Court, therefore, has to see whether the requirements of law and of procedure have
been satisfied in the case and whether the deprivation of the personal liberty is according to
the procedure established by law.61 If to save hundreds of lives, one life is put in peril or if a
law ensures and protects the greater social interest, then such law will be regarded as a
beneficial law. It is the duty of the state to ensure maximum happiness to the maximum
53
¶ 16, Moot Proposition.
54
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. General Secretary and Ors, (2012) IILLJ 317.
55
Civil Services Union v. Minister for Civil Services, (1983) ACC 768.
56
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 2 All ER 680.
57
¶ 26, supra at 12 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. General Secretary and Ors.).
58
Shalini Rawat v. State, 1998 Cri. LJ 1815.; Babu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527.
59
Delip Shankar Koli v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Cri. LJ 500.
60
Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1978) Cri. LJ 760 (P & H).
61
Khinvdan v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) Cri. LJ 1984 1985 (Raj).
8
number as laid down by Bentham.62 In Shankar Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.63 It
was Indisputably stated that, the public interest has to prevail over private interest. Here the
doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot come in the way of public
interest. 64
[¶21] Furthermore, in the case of Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.,65 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in categorical terms has held that if the decision is taken bona fide and in the
interest of public, the Court will be reluctant to exercise the powers of judicial review even if
there is some procedural aberration or error of assessment or prejudice to the tendered. 66The
court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of
the society.67 It is therefore necessary to examine whether such restriction is meant to protect
social welfare68 In the instant case the prescribe for application as per the Rule 69 was in the
light of social welfare in the form of benefit sharing as per the Act.70
(ii) Audi Altrem Partrum
[¶22] In Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP71 SC clearly stated that if the substantial question of law
has already been dealt so, there is no violation of audi altream patrem as the act was in
accordance with the “useless formality” theory hence, there was no violation of principle of
natural justice. The principles of natural justice are furthermore, not required to be complied
with, if it will lead to a mere empty formality. 72 The High Court settled the controversy by
relying on the Supreme Court decision arising out of same controversy, in Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE,73the Court held that the instant controversy stood covered by the
decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, the petition was dismissed holding it to be sans merit. 74
In the instant case the dismissal of appeal cannot be constituted as the Violation of natural
justice because the decision was made on ground set precedent and law.
62
Yash Vithlani & Keerthanaa B, Analysing Preventive Detention Laws and Article 21, vol 4, issue 2, 2018.
63
Shankar Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar and Ors, 2012(3) PLJR 451.
64
¶ 12, Ibid.
65
Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors, (2007) 14 SCC 517.
66
¶ 25, B.B. Enterprises and Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., (2019) 5 GLT 1.
67
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007)1 SCC 70.
68
Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Limited, AIR 1995 SC 2200.
69
S.14(2), Biodiversity Rule, 2004.
70
S.21, Biodiversity Act, 2002.
71
Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP, (2013) 2 SCC 357.
72
KSRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409.
73
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519.
74
M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Union of India, (2003) 2 GLR 358.
9
Hence it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the non- perusal of an incomplete
application under rule 14 of the biological diversity rules, 2004 does not amounts to an
‘order’ or ‘determination’ within the meaning of section 16(j) of the NGT act, 2010 and is
not appealable.
3. Whether Rule 14 of the Biological Rules, 2004 is Constitutionally valid?
[¶23] It’s the Respondent Contention that the Rule 14 of the Biological Rules, 2004 is
constitutionally valid. To that effect, the Respondent seeks to establish that, (A) Rule 14
passes the test of Art. 14 as (i) There is an intelligible differentia in the classification and (ii)
There is a reasonable nexus to the object; (B) Rule 14 is not Arbitrary and Unreasonable as
(i) Rule 14 is not Discriminatory and (ii) Rule 14 is not Disproportionate; (C) There is a
presumption in favors of the validity of the statute as (i) Rule 14 is not Ultravires; (D) Rule
14 is in consonance with Article 21 of Constitution as (i) Right to Life under Art. 21 is not
absolute, (ii) It qualifies test of substantive due process and procedure established by law,
(iii) Quality of life, ecology and environment falls within ambit of Art. 21 and (iv) Rule 14 is
in consonance with the right to healthy life and; (E) Rule 14 is in accordance with
International Principles and Norms.
(A) Rule 14 passes the test of Art. 14
[¶24] In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India,75 it was held that “Equality is one of the
magnificent corner-stones of Indian Democracy”. The underlying object of Article 14 is to
secure to all persons, citizens or non-citizens, the equality of status and opportunity referred
to in the Preamble to our Constitution. 76 It is most respectfully submitted that principle does
not take away from state the power of classifying persons for legitimate purposes. 77 The
legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification. 78 Differential
treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14.79 Any inequality in order to be
unconstitutional must be actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.80
75
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
76
Natural Resources Allocations, Re special Reference Number 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
77
Ameeroonisa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, AIR 1953 SC 91.; Babulal Ahmtalal Mehta v. Collector of
Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877.; Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609.; H.P. Gupta v.
Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 658.
78
Ankul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 1.
79
DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 813 (AR Lakshmanan, V.R. Manohar &
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee ed.,14th Edition, Lexis Nexis, 2009).
80
Chiranjit Lal Chwodhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41, p.66.
10
[¶25] A 5-judge bench of this Hon’ble Court in R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India81 has held
that: “Para 130. In State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 82 this Court said: “The
Legislature has always the power to make special laws to attain particular objects and for that
purpose has authority to select or classify persons, objects or transactions upon which the law
is intended to operate. In this context, test of 'direct impact' in A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras,83 has been subsequently widened in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India,84
wherein the test of 'direct and inevitable consequence' was propounded. In several cases, this
hon’ble Court has often invoked Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri’s words that Art. 14 of the
Constitution does not require that classification brought about by legislation be “scientifically
perfect or logically complete”.85 In that case, Chief Justice Sastri held that Art. 14 does not
“mean that all laws must be general in character and universal in application” or deprive the
state of its “power of distinguishing and classifying persons or things for purposes of
legislation.”86 What was required in such cases, he wrote, was that classification must be
“based on an intelligible principle having a reasonable relation to object which legislature
seeks to attain.”87 It is not obnoxious and is not open to charge of denial of equal protection
on the ground that it has no application to other persons.88 To reconcile Constitutional
equality with facts of life, classification, gradation, or differentiation is inevitable. 89 It is
humbly submitted that Art. 14 denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis
for differentiation.90
(i) There is an intelligible differentia in the classification
[¶26] Intelligible differentia encompasses within its scope whether classification is rational
and is capable of being understood91 and that basis of classification for judging validity of
81
R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324 at page 386.
82
State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., (1964) 6 SCR 846, 850.
83
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
84
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248.
85
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404. See, e.g., Welfare Association v. Ranjit P.
Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358 (paragraph 60); Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712 (paragraph 56).
86
Ibid, paragraph 7 (SCC Online version).
87
Ibid.
88
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318.
89
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 Mad. 120; TL VENKATARAMA AIYAR,
EQUALITY BEFORE LAW (The year Book of Legal Studies, 1960); T Devadasan v. Union of India, AIR
1964 SC 179, pg.185.
90
Ameeroonisa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, AIR 1953 SC 91; Babulal Ahmtalal Mehta v. Collector of
Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877; Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P.) Ltd v. UOI, (2007) 2 SCC 640, 697.
91
K. R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, (2001) 1 SCC 442; State of Kerela v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2
SCC 310.
11
law can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances.92 Classification in such a case
should be based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which
distinguishes persons or things grouped together in the class from others left out of it. 93 It has
been held by the apex Court that Equal treatment of unequal’s is not liable to be struck down
as discriminatory unless there is a simultaneous absence of a rational relation to object
intended to be achieved by law.94
(ii) There is a reasonable nexus to the object
[¶27] In Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar95, it has been held by a 7-judge
bench of Hon’ble Court that Art. 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable
classification. The same was held in Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India96 where 5 judge
benches of this Court have held that: “Para 9. ….. If the sources are properly classified
whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for courts to interfere
with manner and method of making classification.” Classification must not be arbitrary but
scientific, and rest upon real and substantial distinction97 between those covered and those
left out.98 There must be direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between
restriction imposed and object sought to be achieved, and such direct nexus is present, there
would be a strong presumption in favor of constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise. 99
The reasonableness of the restrictions is tested on basis that they must not be arbitrary or of
an excessive nature so as to go beyond requirement of interest of general public. 100 In Casu,
Rule 14 is framed to protect endangered species as well as to protect culture and tradition of
Bholiya Tribe.101
(B) Rule 14 is not Arbitrary and Unreasonable
[¶28] A Five Judge bench of Hon’ble Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.102 has explained
the term arbitrary as very simply the lack of any reasoning, which is not present in the instant
92
Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.
93
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873.
94
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 642.
95
Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; See also, Binoy Viswam vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 2967; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305.
96
Kumari Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228
97
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1.
98
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
99
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. v. State of Madras and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 1080.
100
M. R. F. Limited v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 227.
101
102
E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3; See also, Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, (2002) 2 SCC 188.
12
case as in the instant case there has been a detailed and logical explanation provided. The
said explanation has been further reiterated by another 5-judge bench of this Hon’ble Court
in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.103 No enactment can
be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. 104 5-judge bench of Hon’ble
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushailiya and Ors.105 in Para 7 echoed same sentiment.
[¶29] The Principle of classification under Art. 14 has been subject of deliberation in a
catena of cases.106 No action of State should be of arbitrary and irrational nature which
distinguishes among Individuals.107 Bhagwati J in Bachchan Singh v State of Punjab 108, A
person cannot be deprived of his liberty by a law which is nebulous and uncertain in its
definition and application.109 An ordinary legislation cannot be challenged in a Court of Law
on the grounds of violation of basic structure.110 The restriction imposed was not
unreasonable as mere fact that some hardship or injustice is caused to someone is no ground
to strike down the rule as unconstitutional.111 Further Supreme Court has observed recently in
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, 112 that mere differentiation does not
per se amount to discrimination and to attract operation of equal protection clause, it is
necessary to show that the selection is unreasonable or arbitrary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Chabungam Ibohal Singh v. Union of India113 held that “For deciding whether a
particular decision was arbitrary or reasonable, existing circumstances at time of taking
decision had to be examined.”
[¶30] A statute upon a similar subject deriving its authority from another source can be
referred to, if its provisions have been held to be unreasonable, or have stood test of time,
only for purpose of indicating what may be said to be reasonable in the context, 114 and extent
103
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2019) 1 SCC 1.
104
State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., 3 SCC 709 (1996); See also, State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co.
(1996) 3 SCC 709; Ashok Kumar Thakur v UOI (2008) 6 SCC 1.
105
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushailiya and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 416.
106
Budhan Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.
107
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
108
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336.
109
A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271.
110
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3127.
111
AP Cooperative Oil Seeds Federation Limited v. D Achyuta Rao (2007) 13 SCC 320.
112
K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors AIR 2001 SC 467.; Union of India v. M.V.
Valliappan, (1996) 6 SCC 259.
113
Chabungam Ibohal Singh v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 83.
114
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mandavar, AIR 1955 SC 493; Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 231; Sant Lal Bharti v. State of Punjab AIR 1988 SC 485; State of Tamil Nadu v.
Ananthi Ammal, AIR 1995 SC 2114.
13
to which it is not unconstitutional. 115 A case of arbitrariness is not made out where two views
are possible and view taken by government cannot be challenged on ground that other view
is a better one.116 Mere fact that some hardship or injustice is caused to someone is no ground
to strike down rule altogether if otherwise rule appears to be just, fair and reasonable and not
unconstitutional.117 In Natural Resources Allocation, in re118, the Court had the opportunity to
further comment on the ‘doctrinal looseness’ of the arbitrariness test. This Hon’ble Court, in
State of Madras v. V.G. Row,119 while laying down the test of reasonableness, held that: “…...
It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard
or general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases.
(i) Rule 14 is not Discriminatory
[¶31] The courts have evolved the principle that if the law in question is based on rational
classification it is not regarded as discriminatory. 120 It has been held in the case of Deepak
Sibal v Punjab University121, that ‘[A] classification need not be made with “mathematical
precision”. It has also been held in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v Union of India122that,
‘[T]he courts start with a presumption that the administration has not acted in a
discriminatory manner; they would not easily assume abuse of power when discretion is
vested in high officials.
(ii) Rule 14 is not Disproportionate
[¶32] The classical definition of proportionality has been given by Lord Diplock when his
Lordship rather ponderously stated “you must not use a steam hammer to crack a nut if a nut
cracker would do”.123 M. Jaganatha Rao J. rightly points out, the court may still look into
whether the choice made, infringes the rights excessively or not. 124 Traditionally the Indian
Supreme Court has applied a single (and low or deferential) standard of review –
115
Javed v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 3057.
116
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2562.
117
A. P. Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. v. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 SCC 320.
118
Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
119
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
120
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
121
AIR 1989 SC 903; Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1295.
122
Pannalal Binjraj v Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 397, 408.
123
R v. Goldsmith, (1983) 1 WLR 151, 155.
124
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311,354.
14
reasonableness – to examine violations of articles 14 & 15.125A similar attempt towards mere
semantic change can be seen in Om Kumar v. Union of India.126 Thus proportionality broadly
requires that government action must be no more intrusive than is necessary to meet an
important public purpose.127
(C) There is a presumption in favors of the validity of the statute
[¶33] There is a presumption in favors of the validity of the statute. 128 The Courts of law have
to presume that the particular law is intra vires and not ultra vires.129 Initial presumption is in
favour of the validity of the law. 130 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashutosh
Gupta v. State of Rajasthan131 held that, ‘[T]here is always a presumption in favour of the
constitutionality of enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there
has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. 132 Furthermore, it was held in
the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 133 that, ‘[A] statute carries
with it a presumption of Constitutionality. In Hanif Qureshi (Mhd) v State of Bihar 134 held
that, ‘in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into
consider matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times
and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at legislation.’ It is true
that presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment and it has to
be presumed that a legislature understands and correctly appreciates needs of its own people.
135
It is equally presumed that legislature is aware of general principles of law and didn’t
125
The ‘doctrine of arbitrariness’ propounded by the Supreme Court under Art. 14 will be discussed at an
appropriate stage later in the article.
126
Om Kumar, supra note 11, para 32.
127
Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn, (2007) 4 SCC 669.
128
Narsing Das v Chogemull AIR 1939 Cal 435; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, vol 2 at 2419, 2;
Batterfield v Stranaham 192 US 70; Gopal Krishnayya v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1959 AP 292; Express
Newspapers Ltd v Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578, p 623 Jalan Trading Co Pvt Ltd v Mill Mazdoor Sabha
AIR 1967 SC 691; Lucknow Officials Co-op Hsg Societies v Registrar of Co-op Societies AIR 1967 All 305;
Behampur Tapti Mills Ltd v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1962 MP 255; Waverly Jute Mills Co Ltd v
Raymond & Co (I) Pvt Ltd AIR 1963 SC 90; Ram Krishna Dalmia v SR Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538.
129
Gopal Narain v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1979 Jab LJ 682.
130
G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1975 SC 583; Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002
SC 1533.
131
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 1533
132
Charanjit Lal v Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41; Mohd Hanif Qureshi v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731;
Abdul Karim Thakur v State 1983 Kash LJ 296; Udayan Narayanan Namboodri v State of Kerala (1988) 2 Ker
LT 928.
133
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442.
134
Hanif Qureshi (Mhd) v State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731; Re: Kerala Education Bill AIR 1958 SC 956;
Express Newspapers Ltd v Union of India AIR 1958 SC 578; Gopala Krishnaya v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR
1959 AP 292, p 299; Moti Das v Sahi AIR 1959 SC 942, p 947; Ramkrishna Dalmia v Tendolkar [1959] SCR
274, p 297; Sukhdev Singh v Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 1987 P&H 5.
135
Amita Dhanda, N S Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes (12 edn, LexisNexis, 2017) 189.
15
intent to overthrow fundamental legal principle, in absence of a contrary intention in

unmistakable terms.136
(i) Rule 14 is not Ultravires
[¶34] In P. Janardhan v. Union of India137 the Court said that “The term ultra vires simply
means beyond the power or lack of power. An act is said to be ultra vires when it is excess of
the power of the person or authority doing it.” If any Act is introduced in interest of general
public, it shall not be held as ultra vires unless contrary is proved.138
(D) Rule 14 is in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution
[¶35] The Hon'ble Court has implied a whole bundle of human rights out of Article 21 by
interpreting it along with the DPSP,139 and international charters on Human Rights.140 Right
to life includes right to dignified life 141, right to healthy life142, right to livelihood 143, right to
food, water and decent environment,144 shelter,145 right to social security and protection of
family146etc. State can regulate exercise of fundamental rights to save public from a
substantive evil.147 Right to development is important facets of basic human rights and Art.
21 protects right to life, guaranteeing and deriving minimum needs of existence including a
better tomorrow.148 Although a law may infringe liberty of some individuals, if it ensures and
protects greater social interests, then such law will wholesome and beneficent. 149 However, if
economic situation demands government discretion to adopt a different policy or alter its
136
Graham v Van Wyck 14 Barb 53; See also, Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2010) 10 SCC 96.
137
P. Janardhan v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Mysore 171; See also, State v Nanga and Ors., AIR 1951 Raj. 25;
Madhvan Pillai v State of Kerala, AIR 1966 Kerala 214; Anand Prakash & Ors. v. Asst. Registrar, AIR 1968
All. 22.
138
Bharat Sevashram Sangh and ors v. State of Gujarat and ors., (1986) 4 SCC 51.
139
Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 59.
140
Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568.
141
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Francis Coralie v. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
142
State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, AIR 1997 SC 1225; Vincent v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990.
143
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip kumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109;
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
144
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549.
145
Shantisar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630.
146
Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, (1992) 1 LLN 353.
147
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Ors v. State of A.P and Ors., AIR 2020 SC 384.
148
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and ors. v. RBI, (1996) 1 SCC 753.
149
AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27; Indrajit Barua v. The State of Assam and Ors., AIR 1983
Del. 513.
16
policy to serve public interest, such policy must be free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias
and malice.150
[¶36] Right to unpolluted environment and preservation and protection of nature's gift has
been conceded under Article 21.151 This right encompasses wide variety rights such as
protection from noise, air and water pollution, maintenance of ecological balance and
sustainable development.152 The Hon’ble SC in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.153has stated that, ‘[T]he State Government, while issuing
notification, has followed the jurisprudential principle for protection of environment viz., (a)
precautionary principle (b) sustainable development and (c) principles of intergenerational
equity, in the light of DPSP enshrined under Article 48 - A and Article 51(g), right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 Fundamental Right.’ If direct nexus exists between restrictions
and the object of Act, then a strong presumption in favour of constitutionality of Act will
naturally arise.154 In Casu, Rule 14 has direct nexus as it aims to protect endangered species
by imposing certain restriction.
(i) Right to Life enshrined under Art. 21 is not absolute
[¶37] No right in Part III of the Constitution is absolute, 155 and reasonable restrictions can be
placed.156 The Supreme Court was of the view that though the right to personal liberty has
been read into article 21, it cannot be treated as an absolute right. 157 Anyone can be deprived
150
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt Ltd. and Anr. v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation
Ltd. and ors., (2010) 6 SCC 303; Essar Steel Ltd. v. Union of India and ors., (2016) 11 SCC 1.
151
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (13th edn, Eastern Book Company, (2017) 213.
152
T. Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad AIR 1987 AP 171; Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 2426; Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. AIR
1990 SC 2060; Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420; Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2
SCC 577; Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446; M.C. Mehta v. Union
of India AIR 1996 SC 2231; Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1446;
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 647; F.B. Taraporawala v Bayer India Ltd.AIR
1997 SC 1846; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1977; M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v.
Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734; S. Jagannath v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 811; Animal and Environment
Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1071; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
AIR 1997 SC 1228, 1233; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath AIR 2000 SC 1997; M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries'
Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411; M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of
India (1997) 3 SCC 715; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 5893; A.P. Pollution Control Board v.
Prof. M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3751; State
of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 3236; N.D. Jayal v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 867;
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 4016; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 1325.
153
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2721.
154
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, (1960) 3 SCR 887; O.K. Ghosh v. E.X.
Joseph (1962) IILLJ 615 SC; K.K. Plastic Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and
Ors. MANU/GT/0002/2017; D. Srinivasa Raju v District Forest Officer and Ors., 2002 (5) ALD 252.
155
Justice K. S. Puttuswamy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1.
156
Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker. 161.
157
Sarda v. Dharmpal, AIR 2003 SC 3450.
17
of his right to life and liberty by a procedure established by law provided it is fair and
reasonable.158 In the case of Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, the court held that the
fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity are available to non-citizens of India.159 'Interest of
general public' is a comprehensive expression intended to achieve socioeconomic justice for
people by State.160
(ii) It qualifies test of substantive due process and procedure established by law
[¶38] Article 21 provides that the right to life and liberty is subject to procedure prescribed
by law.161 The Constitution is a living organ, 162 and so is the law of society. 163 Human
societies keep changing and their needs emerge. 164 The requirement is it should not be
arbitrary.165 The requirement of substantive due process read into Constitution through a
combined reading of Art. 14, 21 and 19 and as test required to be satisfied while judging
constitutionality of a statute.166 No uniform test can be culled out to classify acts as “carnal
intercourse against the order of nature”167 and yet a reasonable, just and fair procedure has
been established.
(iii) Quality of life, ecology and environment falls within the ambit of Art. 21.
[¶39] It is humbly submitted that balancing the vital interests of the vast majority of citizens
against the commercial interests of a few, the balance must heavily tilt in favour of citizens in
general.168 One of the integral facets of healthy life is hygienic environment and right to live
with human dignity becomes illusory in the absence of healthy and humane environment.169
(iv) Rule 14 is in consonance with the right to healthy life
158
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; See also, Issac Isangha Musumba v. State of
Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357; N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234.
159
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1886.
160
Kuttisankaran Nair v. Kumaran Nair, AIR 1965 Ker. 161; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481; Court on its own motion v. Union of India, (2012) 12 SCALE 307.
161
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
162
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510.
163
Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Others, AIR 2020 SC 1064.
164
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
165
Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411.
166
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1.
167
Mihir alias Bhikari Charan Sahu v. State, (2005) Cri LJ 488.
168
Arjun Gopal v UOI, AIR 2017 SC 173; See also, Stephen’s college v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC
558.
169
State of MP v Kedia Leather and Liquor Limited AIR 2003 SC 727.
18
[¶40] It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in case of State of Punjab v. M.S.
Chawla170 it has been held that- the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within
its ambit the right to health. The Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that
preservation of life is of paramount importance. 171 ‘once life is lost, status quo ante cannot be
restored172. Where there is a conflict between two derived rights, the right which advances
public morality or public interest should alone be enforced by a process of court.173
(E) Rule 14 is in accordance with International Principles and Norms
[¶41] It is most humbly submitted the Constitution articles 51, 73, 254 & 246 174 have given
consideration to international laws and treaties and clause (c) of Article 51 specifically
mentions ‘International law’ and ‘Treaty Obligations’.175 In the case of Vishakha v. State of
Rajasthan,176 the Supreme Court held that “regard must be had to international conventions
and norms for construing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and
there is a void in the domestic law”. In Casu, Rule 14 is in accordance with IUCN.177
Hence, it is submitted that Rule 14 of the Biological Rules, 2004 is constitutionally valid.
4. Whether the NBA is a ‘State’ and whether its decisions are protected as ‘sovereign’
functions?
[¶42] The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) was established in 2003 by the
Government of Indus u/s 8 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.178 The NBA is a Statutory
body and it performs facilitative, regulatory and advisory function for Government of Indus
on issue of Conservation, sustainable use of biological resource and fair equitable sharing of
benefits of use.179 Thus, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that firstly, The
NBA is a ‘State’ (A), and Secondly, Decisions of NBA are Protected as Sovereign Functions
of the State (B).
170
State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, AIR 1997 SC 1225; See also, Vincent v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCR 468.
171
Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCR 997.
172
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Ed. 6 th (2010), p. 1616; See also, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37; CERC v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 922.
173
Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 631; P. vs. State of Gujarat and
Ors., (1999) 2 GLR 1422.
174
INDUS CONST., Art. 51, 73, 254 and 246.
175
Karamdeep Saini, Relationship between International and Municipal Law: A case study of India, Volume 3
Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 633 (2018).
176
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) SCC CRI 932.
177
178
S.8, The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
179
National Biodiversity, 2003, http://nbaindia.org/content/16/14/1/introduction.html , last seen on 20/03/2021.
19
(A) The NBA is a state
[¶43] It’s the respondent contention that NBA is a statutory authority set up by the
government to perform its facilitative, regulatory and advisory functions and to complete its
obligation under Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992180 and thus is an
instrumentality of the state. This hon’ble court in U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijai
Narain181 held that the U.P. Warehousing Corporation which was constituted under a statute
and owned and controlled by the Government was an agency or instrumentality of the
Government and therefore “the State” within the meaning of Article 12.
[¶44] In R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India 182 hon’ble SC clearly enumerated that if
anybody fit to the five factors determine in this case then that body will be called as state as
per article 12 of the Constitution. Furthermore, if a department of Government is transferred
to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation
being an instrumentality or agency of Government.”183
[¶45] In the instant case it is contended before the hon’ble court that: (i) The NBA relies
heavily upon the government of Indus for its finances, (ii) The state exercises Deep and
Pervasive control over NBA, (iii) The NBA enjoys State conferred and State protected
monopoly status, (iv) The functional character of NBA is Governmental in its essence, (v)
Employees of NBA are Public Servants.
(i) The NBA relies heavily upon the Government for its Finances
[¶46] The NBA relies heavily upon grants from government to conduct its day-today
activities.184 The NBA does not have its own source of income apart from fees etc which does
not constitute much of its budget. 185 The salaries and allowances payable to its members and
the administrative expenses of the NBA including salaries, allowances and pension payable
to, or in respect of, the officers and other employees of the NBA is defrayed out of the
180
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GOI, http://moef.gov.in/en/environment/biodiversity/,
last seen on 10/04/2021
181
U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijai Narain, (1987) 3 SCC 395.
182
R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCR 1014.
183
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 487.
184
Overview of economic sector, Audit Report (Economic Sector) for the year ended March 2017, P-9
https://cag.gov.in/uploads/download_audit_report/2018/Chapter_1_Overview_of_Economic_Sector_of_Report
_No_4_of_2018_-_Economic_Sector_Government_of_Andhra_Pradesh.pdf
185
NBA Annual Report 2017-2018, P-41, http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/Annual_report_2017-18_english.pdf
20
Consolidated Fund of India.186 A perusal of NBA’s audit report available on their website
shows that grants from government amounted for more than 90% of income of Authority.187
(ii) The State Exercises Deep and Pervasive Control Over NBA
[¶47] It is argued before the hon’ble court that the state through central government exercise
deep control over constitution and functioning of the authority. The authority has been
established by the central government.188 The chairperson of the authority who also is the
chief executive189 of the authority is appointed by the central government. 190 Further, the
authority also consists of 10 (ten) ex officio members representing different Ministries of
Central Government, they also are appointed by the central government. 191 Moreover, the
remaining 5 (five) non-official members are also appointed by central government.
[¶48] Hence, form arguments above mentioned it is clear that the authority at its maximum
strength comprises of 16 members (including chairperson) out of which 10 are representative
of different ministries of the central government. Hence, central government is controlling
the majority and is in the position of dictate terms in any meeting thereof. 192 Furthermore, the
central government also enjoys power to remove any member on the basis of its discretion. 193
The National Biodiversity Act, 2002 also lays that the NBA shall be bound by the directives
given by the central government.194 Hence, from the above-mentioned reason it can safely be
concluded that the state through central government exercise deep control over NBA.
(iii) The NBA Enjoys State Conferred and State Protected Monopoly Status
[¶49] Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 195 sovereign rights of state
over its biological resources were recognised. The States were given liberty to control the use
of biological resources just like any other natural resource of the country. The Republic of
Indus thus enacted The Biological Diversity Act which set outs the rules of exploitation of
biological resources. Under this act permission of the NBA is required: (i) when the country's
186
S.17, The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
187
Ibid.
188
S.8 (1), Biodiversity Act, 2002.
189
S.10, Ibid.
190
S.8 (4)(a), Ibid.
191
S.8 (4)(b) & S. 8 (4)(c), Ibid.
192
S.12 (4), Ibid.
193
S.11, Ibid.
194
S.48, ibid.
195
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992.
21
biodiversity is sought to be commercialized,196 (ii) when the results of research are shared
with a foreigner or foreign institution, 197 and (iii) when a foreign institution/individual wants
access to the country's biodiversity for undertaking research198 and (iv) when any intellectual
property protection is sought on country’s biological resources. 199 Thus, the NBA enjoys
monopoly on deciding who gets to utilise Indus’s biological resources, which have been
conferred by state under The Biological Diversity Act. This monopoly is also protected by
the state as non-compliance of the same has been made offence under the act.200
(iv) The Functional Character of NBA is Governmental in its Essence
[¶50] The NBA performs facilitative, regulatory and advisory function for Government of
Indus on issue of Conservation, sustainable use of biological resource and fair equitable
sharing of benefits of use.201 The nature of work done by the authority is of public in nature
and of public importance, it manages public biological resources of the country. In absence
of authority this work would have to been done by central government or by its ministry
thereof.
(v) Employees of NBA are Public Servants
[¶51] As per the section 55 of the act202 all members, officers and other employees of NBA
would deem to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 203 of the Indian Penal
Code. Here in the instant case rejection of incomplete application were done by the NBA
authority204 and as per the law that authority is also deem to be public servant.
(B) Decisions of NBA are protected as sovereign functions of the state.
[¶52] Sovereignty over natural resources within the state territory is today an established
principle in international law. 205 The fundamental idea is that each country, as a sovereign
actor, is in charge of the biodiversity within its territory. 206 It is humbly submitted before the
196
S.3 & S.7, Biodiversity Act, 2002.
197
S.4, Biodiversity Act, 2002
198
199
200
201
Ibid; http://nbaindia.org/content/16/14/1/introduction.html
202
203
S.21, Indus Penal Code, 1860.
204
205
Elena Casetta, Jorge Marques da Silva and Davide Vecchi, From Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity
Conceptual and Practical Challenges, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-10991-2.pdf
last seen on 05/04/2021.
206
Ibid.
22
hon’ble court that (i) NBA is performing primary inalienable functions which only State
could exercise, (ii) NBA being Executive is Free to Implement and Administer the Law, and
(iii) NBA is Not Answerable for its Actions in Courts of Law.
(i) NBA is performing primary inalienable functions which only State could exercise
[¶53] Isaacs, J. in his dissenting judgment in The Federated State School Teachers
Association of Australia v. The State of Victoria207, concisely States that Regal functions are
inescapable and inalienable. Such are the legislative power, the administration of laws, the
exercise of the judicial power. This view of the Isaacs, J. has been accepted by Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court in Legal Heris of Decd. Umedmiya R Rathod & 5 v. State of Gujarat.208
[¶54] In Agricultural Product Market Committee v. Ashok Harikuni & Anr 209 the Supreme
Court laid down: “So, sovereign function in the new sense may have very wide ramification
but essentially sovereign functions are primary inalienable functions which only State could
exercise. In the instant case the authority has been empowered to manage and regulate the
exploitation of Indus’s biological resources which is a primary and inalienable function
which only State could exercise, and thus cannot be handed over to any private party. 210
Moreover, authority has also been established to comply with the international commitments
made by the state and same is yet another primary and inalienable function of the State.
(ii) NBA being Executive is Free to Implement and Administer the Law
[¶55] In N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 211, the court laid that: “In the
modem sense the distinction between sovereign or non-sovereign power thus does not exist.
It all depends on the nature of power and manner of its exercise. Legislative supremacy
under the Constitution arises out of constitutional provisions. The legislature is free to
legislate on topics and subjects carved out for it. Similarly, the executive is free to implement
and administer law. In the instant case NBA being the executive branch of the government,
which have been constituted for effective implementation of the Biodiversity policy of the
country. Therefore, actions of NBA come under the preview of sovereign function of the
state.
207
The Federated State School Teachers Association of Australia v. The State of Victoria, (1929) 41 CLR 569.
208
Legal Heris of Decd. Umedmiya R Rathod & 5 Versus State of Gujarat, (2017) 3 Guj 2091.
209
Agricultural Product Market Committee vs Ashok Harikuni & Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 61.
210
211
N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs. State of AP., AIR 1994 SC 2663.
23
(iii) NBA is not answerable for its Actions in Courts of Law.
[¶56] In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of

Bengal & Anr.212 it was held that, the question that whether a particular function of the State
is a sovereign function depends on the nature of the power and manner of its exercise.
Further, in N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh213, the court laid that: “One
of the tests to determine if the legislative or executive function is sovereign in nature is,
whether the State is answerable for such actions in Courts of law.” In the case at hand, the
parent act i.e. The Biodiversity Act, barres the courts from initiating any proceeding against
any action done in good faith under the act thereby making the authority, central government
and their employees thereof unanswerable to the court of law.214
Hence it is humbly submitted that the NBA is a ‘state’ and its decisions are protected as
“sovereign functions”.
5. Whether the non-disclosure, as alleged by the Developmental Board, vitiates their

contract?
[¶57] It’s the Respondent contention that there was disclosure of all grounds and there is no
vitiation of contract. To that effect, the Respondent seeks to establish that, (A) There was
disclosure of all the grounds; (B) NBA has acted as per the terms and conditions of the
contract and (C) Government acted in accordance with public interest.
(A) There was disclosure of all the grounds
[¶58] It’s the respondent contention that there was no such non-disclosure with respect to
contract on the side of respondent as the contract was entered by the parties under the section
21 of the Act.215 It is well settled law that the conduct of a party is sufficient to prove
acceptance of offer.216 Moreover, Section 2(g) of the NGT Act deals with ‘fair and equitable’
benefit sharing which would be determined by the National Biodiversity Authority.
Additionally, section 19 or section 20 ensure that the terms and conditions subject to which
approval is granted secures equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of accessed
biological resources, their by-products, innovations and practices associated with their use
212
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr., (1995) 2 SCC 161.
213
N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of AP., AIR 1994 SC 2663.
214
S. 54, Biodiversity Act, 2002.
215
S. 21, Biodiversity Act, 2002.
216
Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co., (1877) 2 App Cas. 666.
24
and applications and knowledge relating thereto in accordance with mutually agreed terms
and conditions between the person applying for such approval, local bodies concerned and
the benefit claimers. In the instant case it is quite pellucid that the BDB was well aware of
the fact the respondent is entering into contract in order to do research on the mentioned
plant.217
[¶59] Here the contracts entered between the parties were as per section 21 of the Act which
particularly deals with benefit sharing. It also empowers NBA to regulate such sharing in
accordance to section 19 and 20 of the Act.218 In the instant case NBA has also proposed
benefit sharing to BDB.219 Hence there was no such non-disclosure on the side of respondent.
(B) NBA has acted as per the terms and conditions of the contract
[¶60] The terms of a contract can be expressly agreed orally or in writing. In addition, terms
may even be implied by law, the conduct of the parties, custom in a particular trade, previous
dealings or the parties’ intentions.220 The terms of the contact were implied and was clear
under Article 21 of the Act. Non-Disclosure Agreements debarring access to information and
thereby disrupting the transparency and accountability of the public authority were in
violation of the very spirit of the Act and therefore illegal to the extent they
prevented disclosure beyond what was exempted under the Act.221 In the instant case NBA
has fulfilled its duty towards the contract by proposing benefit sharing to BDB 222 irrespective
of the fact that till now there was no commercialization of the discovered medicine and so
there was no benefit so far.223
(C) Government acted in accordance with public interest.
[¶61] Central Government and state governments are empowered to regulate health-related
matters. The Epidemic Diseases Act is the main legislative framework at the central level for
217
218
Ss. 19 & 20, Biodiversity Act, 2002.
219
220
Back to the Basics- Terms of a contract,
https://www.fortunelaw.com/back-to-basics-terms-of-a-contract/#:~:text=The%20terms%20of%20a
%20contract,dealings%20or%20the%20parties'%20intentions.&text=Contractual%20terms%20are%20defined
%20as%20conditions%2C%20warranties%20or%20innominate%20terms., Fortunelaw, Last seen on
20/03/2021.
221
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Shri Chander Sekhar, (2013) 2 LLN 375 (DEL).
222
223
25
the prevention and spread of dangerous epidemic diseases. 224 The Act empowers the central
government to take necessary measures to deal with dangerous epidemic disease at ports of
entry and exit. The Act also empowers the states to take special measures or promulgate
regulations to deal with epidemics within their state jurisdictions.225
[¶62] International human rights law guarantees everyone the right to the highest attainable
standard of health and obligates governments to take steps to prevent threats to public health
and to provide medical care to those who need it. 226 Human rights law also recognizes that in
context of serious public health threats and public emergencies threatening life of nation,
restrictions on some rights can be justified when they have a legal basis, are strictly
necessary, based on scientific evidence and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in
application, of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, subject to review, and
proportionate to achieve the objective.227
[¶63] The fruits of the plant, from which the medicinal drug is created, is characterized by
potent compounds, notably a chemical found which if consumed acts as a more efficient
form of paracetamol. The leaves, flowers and seeds of Jemej have a great potential to cure
many diseases if synthesized properly.228 So it is the duty of the government to act in the
public interest. In the instant case disease named Bloodfire was turning into a pandemic and
in order to avoid such pandemic certain precautionary rules were led down both by ministry
of Home Affairs and Central Government along with research on a plant named Jemej. 229
Whenever there is condition of choosing between art. 29 and 21 than government must chose
article 21.
a) Whether the acts of the NBA amounts to violation of Article 29 of the Constitution?
[¶64] In the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India230, it was held by the bench that the Act
does not violate Article 29 and 30. The court held that it in no way curtailed their right or
prevented any citizen from conserving its own language, script or culture and thus was not of
violation of Article 29. Also, in the case of Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of
224
India: Legal Responses to Health Emergencies, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/health-emergencies/india.php.
Library of Congress Law, last seen on 25/03/2021.
225
Ibid.
226
Human Rights Dimensions of COVID-19 Response, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/19/human-rights-
dimensions-covid-19-response, last seen on 20/03/2021.
227
Ibid.
228
229
230
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1.
26
Gujarat & Anr,231 Khanna J. stated that such provisions are necessary so that “none might
have the feeling that any section of the population consisted of first-class citizens and the
other of second-class citizens”. He also stated that a majority of the Fundamental Rights of
the Constitution protect majority rights as it protects minority rights.
[¶65] Further, Article 29(1) guarantees to every section of citizens having a distinct
language, script or culture the right to conserve the same. The right vouchsafed is included in
clause (1) of Art. 19. In State of M.P. v. Bharat Singh232, this Hon’ble Court upheld
fundamental right of a citizen to reside in any place he desires. Moreover, provisions of Art
48A of Constitution are required to be construed as a part of principles contained in Art 21.
A statute may not be ultra vires of Art.48 itself if it not otherwise offensive of Arts.14 and 21
of the Constitution.233 The government also understands that depriving any person of the
basic requirements would be a deprivation of their livelihood. No person can live without the
means of livelihood.234
[¶66] In the instant case respondent submits that the policy decision of the government is
based on reason and there is no such arbitrary consideration. There was need to curtail the
disease named Bloodfire which was getting very popular. So, in order to come out from this
situation NBA decided to do research on the plant named Jemej, 235 which played a very
crucial role in the life of Bholiya Tribes. Later on Initial quick and effective result where
witness by NBA which ultimately encouraged NBA to send more research units to the
area.236 Hence the act of the NBA was in the light of public interest.
(i) No special right guaranteed to the indigenous people under the Constitution
[¶67] The term “indigenous people” is not recognized in India237 and so the indigenous
people have not been guaranteed any special status, per se, unless recognized under the
Constitution as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, all the tribal’s are considered
to be indigenous, but all indigenous people are not considered as tribal. 238 To be safeguarded
231
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (1975) 1 SCR 173.
232
State of M.P. v. Bharath Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170.
233
Bombay Dyeing and manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434.
234
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
235
236
237
Indigenous & Tribal Peoples’ Rights in Practice – A Guide To ILO Convention No. 169
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/publication/wcms_106474.pdf
Last seen on 28/03/2021.
238
State of Kerala And Another v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit and Others, Civil Appeal
Nos. 104-105 Of 2001.
27
under Article 244(1) of the Constitution as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe the
President has to recognize the indigenous people as Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste or
the area as the Scheduled area under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution. In the present
case, the indigenous population “Bholiyas” cannot be considered as Scheduled Tribe or
Scheduled caste, as the facts are being silent on this particular point.
(ii) Medical use of this plant species will not harm Bholiya tribe
[¶68] Government has to balance two rights one is right to life and other is right to culture.
Government is using this Jemej plant to cure the Bloodfire disease that that was soon
threatening to turns into a pandemic.239 The use of this plant is for the benefit of the mankind.
The number of plant species which have at one time or another been used in some culture for
medicinal purposes can only be estimated. An enumeration of the WHO from the late 1970s
listed 21 000 medicinal species (Penso 1980).
[¶69] However, in China alone 4941 of 26092 native species are used as drugs in Chinese
traditional medicine (Duke and Ayensu 1985), an astonishing 18.9 percent. If this proportion
is calculated for other well-known medicinal floras and then applied to the global total of
422000 flowering plant species (Bramwell 2002; Govaert 2001), it can be estimated that the
number of plant species used for medicinal purposes is more than 50000. 240 These are the
number of medicinal plants that was taken in use when in need of public interest. It is the
duty of the government to protect the cultural rights of the citizens but when there it is for the
public interest and about their life then government has to choose the public interest with
some measures to avoid harm to the indigenous people. In the instant case the contract was
enter in order to do research on Jemej plant.241 The purpose for this research was to secure
life of public at large from the disease named Bloodfire.242
Hence it is hum’bly submitted before this hon’ble court that there was neither non-disclosure
nor the act of NBA amount to the violation of article 29 of the Constitution.
6. Does NBA stand responsible/accountable for harm to an endangered species?
[¶70] It’s respondent contention that NBA is not responsible for harm to an Endangered
Species. To that effect, Respondent seeks to establish that, (A) Actions of NBA were guided
239
240
Supra 193.
241
242
28
by “Salus populi suprema lex esto”; (B) The NBA/State is immune under Section 54 of act
and (C) State is not Answerable for Policy Decision taken in its Sovereign Functions.
(A) The actions of NBA were guided by “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto”
[¶71] It connotes that health, safety and welfare of the public is supreme in law, has been
well accepted in Indus-ian Jurisprudence.243 This doctrine has time and again been invoked
by Indus-ian court to keep public interest at higher pedestal that private interest. 244 In Sayyed
Ratanbhai Sayeed vs. Shirdi Nagar245 it was stated that perceptionally health, law and order,
peace, security and a clean environment are some of the areas of public and collective good
where private rates being in conflict there with has to take a back seat. The words of Cicero
were quoted - “the good of people is chief law”246 This doctrine is applicable in facts and
circumstance of the instant case as here the state through NBA was acting in good faith to
find cure of an ongoing pandemic of “bloodfire”, which have already claimed life of many.
(B) The NBA/State is immune under section 54 of the act.
[¶72] Section 54 of the National Biodiversity Act, 2002 lays that: “No suit, prosecution or
other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or the State Government or
any officer of the Central Government or the State Government or any member, officer or
employee of the National Biodiversity Authority or the State Biodiversity Board for anything
which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rules or regulations
made thereunder.” The state in the present was acting in bona fide manner with the intention
to promote the research for the cure of ‘Bloodfire’ disease and saving the human life which
would have been lost thereto.
(C) The State is not Answerable for Policy Decision taken in Exercise of its Sovereign
Functions
[¶73] Health of its citizens has been prime concern of Indus’s policy decisions; it has become
more important in the prevailing pandemic circumstances. It has also been the policy of the
government to promote researches utilizing India’s biological resources. 247 The wholesome
243
Bihar Private Technical and Professional Institutions Association and Others v. State of Bihar And Others,
(2017) 4 PLJR 975.
244
G Sundarrajan Versus Union of India And Others, (2013) 6 SCC 620.
245
Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed v. Shirdi Nagar, (2016) 4 SCC 22.
246
Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu And Others Lnindord, (2020) Mad. 160.
247
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Implementation of India’s
National Biodiversity Action Plan an Overview 2019, P- 36 & 37 https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/in/in-nbsap-
other-en.pdf, Last seen on 10/04/2021.
29
rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government

takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from considering irrelevant factors and
acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same.248
[¶74] In Centre for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 249 it was held that “Government is
not accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions. Also in Ugar Sugar Works
Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.250, quoting law laid down in an English Court, the Supreme Court said
that: “It would also be prudent to recall the following observations of Lord Justice Lawton
in Laker Airways Ltd. v. Deptt. of Trade251, while considering the parameters of judicial
review in matters involving policy decisions of the executive: In the United Kingdom
aviation policy is determined by Ministers within the legal framework set out by Parliament.
Judges have nothing to do with either policy making or the carrying out of policy. Their
function is to decide whether a Minister has acted within the powers given him by statute or
the common law. If he is declared by a court, after due process of law, to have acted outside
his powers, he must stop doing what he has done until such time as Parliament gives him the
powers he wants. In a case such as this I regard myself as a referee. I can blow my judicial
whistle when the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts I must neither take part in
it nor tell the players how to play.
[¶75] In response to the “bloodfire” outbreak, there exists an urgent need to accelerate the
development of diagnostics, vaccines, novel therapeutics and re-purposing of drugs for this
novel virus. Thus, the government is promoting research on biological resources occurring in
India or knowledge associated thereto. The decisions taken by state through NBA are thus,
policy decision and thus, is beyond judicial review.
[¶76] Furthermore, it is within the power of NBA to grant permissions for conducting
research on any of the biological resources occurring in India or knowledge associated
thereto. Also, it is not the case of petitioner that NBA in any manner acted illegally or in bad
faith for approving research on Jemej or in Bholiya region. Thus, is free of any speculations
of illegality. State cannot be held accountable for its Policy Decision taken in Exercise of its
Sovereign Functions.
248
Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289.
249
Centre for PIL and Another v. Union of India and Another, AIR 2011 SC 1267.
250
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn. (2001) 3 SCC 635.
251
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Deptt. of Trade, (1977) QB 643: (1977) 2 WLR 234.
30
Hence it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the NBA does not stand
responsible for the harm caused to endangered species.
7. Whether the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the implementation thereof is
[¶77] It’s the Respondent contention that Epidemic Disease Act is not arbitrary, and
implementation in pursuance of such order does not amounts to a violation of the
fundamental rights. To that effect, the respondent seeks to establish that, (A) The epidemic
disease act is in consonance with Article 14 as (i) The Epidemic Diseases Act passes
Proportionality Test; (B) The implementation does not violate any fundamental rights as it is
in accordance with Article 21 as (i) The act seeks to maintain Right to Health and values of
Directive Principles, (ii) State needs to act in accordance with social need of hour to fulfils
doctrine of necessity and (iii) The Act was is in Public Interest and; (C) It gives reasonable
delegation to state government.
(A) The epidemic disease act is in consonance with Article 14
[¶78] Art. 14 is a basic structure. 252 In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R
Tendolkar,253 wherein the true meaning and scope of Art. 14 was reiterated as follows; "It is
now well established that while Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of
permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification
must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.254
[¶79] It doesn’t violate the spirit of Art. 14 as it upholds the test of reasonable classification
as propounded by a seven Judge Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of State of West
Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar255. It must be presumed that the legislature understands and
correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made
252
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) SCC 1; Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State of Assam, AIR
1990 SC 123.
253
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R Tendolkar, (1959) SCR 279.
254
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and Anr., AIR 2014 SC 2140; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The
International Airport Authority of India & Ors., (1979) 3 SCR 1014.
255
State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
31
manifest by experience, and that its differential treatment is based on adequate grounds.256 A
classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. 257 The validity of a rule
has to be judged by assessing its overall effect and not by picking up exceptional cases. What
court has to see is: Whether after taking all aspects into consideration, action of state is
just.258
[¶80] In arguendo, public welfare requires that persons, property and occupations be
classified and be subjected to different and appropriate legislation. Governance is not a
simple exercise. It encounters and must deal with the problems which come from persons in
an infinite variety of relations. Classification is the recognition of these relations; a
legislature must have wide latitude of discretion and judgement.259
[¶81] In casu, state legislature uses the reasonable power. As a result of spread of
communicable disease, the Government of New Dalias had announced and notified The
Delhi Epidemic Diseases (Management of COVID-19) Regulations, 2020. Deriving authority
from the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, it allows “authorized persons” from taking action
against a person violative of these Rules260 this shows that there is substantial public interest.
(i) The Epidemic Diseases Act passes the Proportionality Test
[¶82] It is submitted that Thakkar J, has said that, ‘“proportionality” involves “balancing
test” and “necessity test”. Whereas balancing test permits scrutiny of excessive onerous
penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant
considerations, the necessity test requires infringement of human rights to least restrictive
alternative.’261 Judgment on proportionality must always involve striking of a fair balance
between rights of individual and the interests of the community. 262 It has been held that any
penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art. 14. 263
Furthermore, it has also been held in the case of De Fruitas v Permanent Secretary of
256
Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 366.
257
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404.
258
Mohd. Usman v. State of A.P., (1971) 2 SCC 188
259
Tigner v. Texas, (1940) AC 12.
260
261
Coimbatore District Central Co-op Bank v Coimbatore District Central Co-op Bank Employees Assn, (2007)
4 SCC 669; R v Shayler, (2002) 2 All ER 477,498, 506 (HL); R v A, (2001) 3 All ER 1 (HL); R v Secretary of
State for the Home Dept ex parte Daly, (2001) 3 All ER 433, (HL); Matthews v Ministry of Defence, (2003) 1
All ER 689, p. 723 (HL).
262
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, (2007) 4 All ER 15 (HL) para 19 p 29; R (JF) v Secretary of
State, (2010) 2 All ER 707 (U K SC) para 7 (Lord Phillips President).
263
Bhagat Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454, 460; For unreasonable and arbitrary provisions
see, Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.
32
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Housing 264 that, ‘[T]he principle of proportionality
requires the court to apply a three stage test: (1) whether the objective sought to be achieved
is relevant and sufficiently important to justify limiting the fundamental rights; (2) whether
the means chosen to limit that right are rational fair and not arbitrary, and (3) whether means
used impair right as minimally as reasonably possible’. In Casu, all the three stage tests are
satisfied in the instant case.
(B) The implementation does not violate any fundamental rights as it is in accordance
with Article 21
[¶83] Article 21 casts obligation on State to preserve life. 265 Most important words in this
provision are procedure established by law. 266 If to save hundreds of lives, one life is put in
peril or if a law ensures and protects greater social interest, then such law will be regarded as
a beneficial law. Maintenance of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to
the very physical existence of community and on betterment of these depends the building of
the Society of which the Constitution makers envisaged.267
[¶84] The Constitutional Right to dignity is intended to ensure human beings' political and
Civil liberties as well as their social and economic freedoms." 268 The human dignity and the
worth of human person enshrined in Article 21 obligates State not to incarcerate except under
law which is fair, just and reasonable in its procedural essence. 269 The word ‘Law’ in
expression established by law has been interpreted to mean that law must be right, just and
fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.270
[¶85] In casu, no doubt Government is rendering this obligation by opening Government

hospitals and health centres, but in order to make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach
of its people, as far as possible, to reduce queue of waiting lists, and it has to provide all
facilities to control spread of this disease and tone up its Administration to give effective
contribution, which is also duty of Government. The right to life includes the right to live
with human dignity and all that goes along with it, bare necessaries of life such as adequate
nutrition, clothing and shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in
264
De Fruitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Housing, (1999) 1 AC 69, p 80.
265
Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 286.
266
AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
267
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246.
268
Patel Shreyas Kumar Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2020 Guj. 421.
269
Jolly George v. Bank of Cochin, 1980 SC 470.
270
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
33
diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human
beings.271
[¶86] It is plain and indisputable that under our Constitution law cannot be arbitrary or
irrational.272 In the instant case epidemic disease act deals with the extra-ordinary situation as
the purpose of the legislators is to curb the spread of the disease so it gives wide amount of
power to protect the life of the persons as it is also in accordance with procedure established
by law. Also, this act is just, fair and reasonable as it fulfils the interest of the public at large.
(i) The act seeks to maintain the Right to Health and the values of the Directive Principles
[¶87] It is submitted that the State has a primary duty to improve public health. 273 The state
shall also direct its policy towards ensuring the health and strength of workers, men and
women.274 Health of an individual being an important facet of life, 275 is enshrined as a
fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution. 276 Moreover, International Law also
fosters the right of everyone to attain highest attainable standards of physical and mental
health.277While determining reasonableness of a restriction, directive principles are also taken
into consideration.278 An action taken by Government with view to giving effect to any one or
more of Directive Principles would ordinarily qualify for being regarded as reasonable.279
(ii) State needs to act in accordance with social need of hour to fulfils doctrine of necessity
[¶88] It is submitted that the court should understand need of society, which the legislature is
trying to satisfy, and judicial review of such legislation should be dynamic, pragmatic and
elastic, examining whether it satisfies the need prevailing in the society. 280The doctrine of
necessity is founded on the principle ― “necessitas non habet legem” necessity knows no
law. The doctrine of necessity is a term used to describe basis on which extraordinary actions
by administrative authority, which are designed to restore order or uphold fundamental
271
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42.
272
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24.
273
Indus Const. art. 47.
274
Indus Const. art. 39(e).
275
State of Punjab and ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and ors., (1998) 4 SCC 117.
276
Vincent Panikur Iangara v. Union of India and ors., (1987) 2 SCC 165.
277
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) art. 12 cl.1.
278
State of Bombay v. Balasara, AIR 1951 SC 318; Quraishi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.
279
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992.
280
Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 2200.
34
constitutional principles, are found to be constitutional even if such action would normally be
deemed in contravention to established norms or conventions.281
(iii) The Act was is in Public Interest
[¶89] In Krishna Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, 282 it was held that,
to decide whether or not rights will continue, courts are required to apply a test of public
interest and constitutional necessity, including considering issue of whether actions that have
taken place under the ordinance are irreversible. Moreover, in Bharat Sevashram Sangh and
Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.283 it was held that "If any Act is introduced in interest of
general public, it shall not be held as ultra vires unless contrary is proved."
[¶90] Later in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal 284 had defined public
interest. Court opined that “Public Interest, a matter of public or general interest does not
mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or amusement but that in which a class
of community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected." If any action of government stands on touchstone of public interest, it
shall be valid.
(C) It gives reasonable delegation to state government
[¶91] As held by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others 285,
reported in, manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the Legislature capriciously,
irrationally and/or without adequate determining Principle. In arguendo, by any stretch of
imagination the impugned Government Resolution taking appropriate step to control the
spread of the virus in this hour of crisis cannot be termed as arbitrary, much less, manifestly
arbitrary.
[¶92] The impugned Resolution has been issued with a definite purpose and object. It is the
need of the hour that compelled the State Government to come out with such Resolution so
that the State Government gets a helping hand in combating with the Covid-19 pandemic. 286
Articles 73(1) and 162 confer Administrative power on the Central and the State Government
281
Ambica Construction v. Union of India, (2007) 13 SCC 475.
282
Krishna Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 2 SCJ 136.
283
Bharat Sevashram Sangh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 51.
284
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, (2003) 9 SCALE 741.
285
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
286
Patel Shreyaskumar Kamleshkumar vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2020 Guj. 421.
35
respectively. The Administrative power of a Government is thus co-extensive with its

Legislative power.287
[¶93] When a State action is challenged, the function of Court is to examine action in
accordance with law and to determine whether Legislature or the executive has acted within
the powers and functions assigned under Constitution and if not, the Court must strike-down
the action. While doing so Court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The Court sits in
judgment on action of a coordinate branch of Government. While exercising power of
Judicial review of Administrative action, the Court is not an appellate Authority. The
Constitution does not permit Court to direct or advise executive in matters of policy or to
sermonize qua any matter which under Constitution lies within sphere of Legislature or
executive, provided these Authorities do not transgress their Constitutional limits or
Statutory powers.288
Hence it is humbly submitted that the epidemic disease act is constitutionally valid.
287
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549.
288
Asif Hameed and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1989 SC 1899.
36
PRAYER
It is hereinafter humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indus that in the light
of issue raised, argument advanced, authorities cited and pleadings made, the Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That, the non-perusal of an incomplete application under Rule 14 of the Biological

Diversity Rules, 2004 doesn’t amount to ‘order’ or determination.
2. That, Rule 14 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 is constitutionally valid and the
NBA is a ‘state’ and is not responsible for harm caused to endangered species.
3. That, the non-disclosure as alleged by Developmental Board doesn’t amount to vitiation
of Contract and act of NBA is not in violation of Article 29 of Indus Constitution.
4. That, the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the implementation thereof is constitutionally
valid.
OR / OTHERWISE
PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS SHALL FOREVER PRAY.
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Respondents)
37

Under Article 32, 136 and 139A of The Constitution of Indus Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Under Article 32, 136 and 139A of The Constitution of Indus Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UU-LCD-NMCC-2021 TC-10 (R)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDUS

UNDER ARTICLE 32, 136 AND 139A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDUS

SECTION 22 OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010

MR. AMAN & ORS..............………………………...………. PETITIONERS

UNION OF INDUS & ORS.....................................................RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION N o . X X X O F 2021

APPEAL NO. XXX OF 2021

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[1.] Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are

(iii) The Petitioner is required to exhaust existed alternative remedy…………….

A. Application was incomplete in nature………………………………………………….6

[3.] Whether Rule 14 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 is constitutionally

A. Rule 14 passes the test of Art. 14………………………………………………...

i. There is an intelligible differentia in the classification………….……….

ii. There is a reasonable nexus to the

B. Rule 14 is not Arbitrary and

i. Rule 14 is not Discriminatory………………………………………………………

ii. Rule 14 is not Disproportionate……………………………………………...

C. There is a presumption in favors of the validity of the statute…………………………

i. Rule 14 is not Ultravires…………………………………………………..……

D. Rule 14 is in consonance with Article 21 of Constitution………………………….

i. Right to Life under Art. 21 is not

ii. It qualifies test of substantive due process and procedure established by

iv. Rule 14 is in consonance with the right to healthy

E. Rule 14 is in accordance with International Principles and Norms…………….……18

A. The NBA is a State…………………………………………………………..………..19

B. Decisions of NBA are protected as Sovereign

A. There was disclosure of all

a) Whether acts of the NBA amount to violation of Article 29 of the

i. No special right guaranteed to the indigenous people under the

[6.] Does NBA stand responsible for harm to an endangered

A. Actions of NBA were guided by “Salus populi suprema lex

A. The epidemic disease act is in consonance with Article 14……………………….

B. The implementation is in accordance with Article 21……………………………..…

*NOTE: It is Bookmarked. Click on items (Issues) to directly jump to the respective

AIR All India Records

¶ & Para. Paragraph

8. Ameeroonisa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, AIR 1953 SC 91………………………...10,

24. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336………………………………...13,

69. Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC

101. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC

131. Mohd. Usman v. State of A.P., (1971) 2 SCC

177. Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed vs. Shirdi Nagar (2016) 4

224. Union of India v. M.V. Valliappan, (1996) 6 SCC

ARTICLES AND JOURNALS

7. Sonali Mahajan, Contractual Liability of State in India- An Analysis, Volume 2

1. 1&2 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: WITH CONSTITUTIONAL

 Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edition, 2009)

 Article 32 of the Constitution: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are Maintainable?

Whether Rule 14 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 is constitutionally valid?

Whether the non-disclosure, as alleged by the Developmental Board, vitiates their

Does NBA stand responsible/accountable for harm to an endangered species?

[6.] Does NBA stand responsible/accountable for harm to an endangered species?

1. Whether all the Petitions in the instant Case are Maintainable?

(i) The petitioner does not have a locus standi

(ii) There has been no violation of Fundamental Right

(iii) The petitioner is required to exhaust existed alternative remedy

2. Whether the non- perusal of an incomplete application under Rule 14 of the

(A) Application was incomplete in nature