37 P

JLU – SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITON 2021

IN THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF KINGS LANDING

AT GOTHAM

IN THE MATTERS OF

NATURAL AGRICULTURE MOMENT ……………..…........................................... PETITIONER

VERSUS

REPUBLIC OF KINGSLANDING…………………………………………………RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. XXXX/2021

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF MARVEL LAND WITH

ORDERXXXVIII OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 Contents
Index of Authorities........................................................................................................................iii

Statement of Facts..........................................................................................................................iv

Statement of jurisdiction..................................................................................................................v

Issues for Consideration.................................................................................................................vi

Summary of Arguments................................................................................................................vii

Arguments Advanced......................................................................................................................1

I. The ‘notification’ by the government is unconstitutional.....................................................1

a) The ‘Notification’ is in violation of Article 14.................................................................1

b) The ‘Notification’ is in violation of Article 21.................................................................3

II. The State has failed in its fundamental duty to protect and improve the environment........5

a) State has failed to comply its fundamental duties guaranteed by the Constitution of
Kings Landing..........................................................................................................................5

Prayer...............................................................................................................................................7

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Abdul Rehman v. Pinto AIR 1951 HYD 11....................................................................................8

Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109...........9
Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1622...................................................8, 11
D.K Yadav v. J.M.A Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258......................................................................10
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (2) 185..........................................................................9
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.................................................................................7
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611................................................................7
Kinkari Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 HP 4........................................................11
MC Mehta v. Union of India 1997 2 SCC 353..............................................................................10
Minerva Mills Ltd.v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789.............................................................10
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp., AIR 1986 SC 180.........................................................10
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564..........................................................................8
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958............................................................8
Rubinder Singh v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 65........................................................................8
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344.........................................7
T. Damodhar Rao. S.O municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171...........................11

Constitutional Provisions

INDIA CONST. art 21.....................................................................................................................9

INDIA CONST. art 48A................................................................................................................11
INDIA CONST. art.51A (g)..........................................................................................................11
INDIA CONSTI. Art 14..................................................................................................................7

Books

J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Pg 290..........................................................................10

7 M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Pg 881,2014......................................................................8

iii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The NCR of Kings landing has witnessed massive outbreak of environmental. Over the last two
decades, pollution levels have risen to the point where, starting in 2015, Gotham has
continuously ranked among the top three most polluted cities in the world. The quality of the
ambient air throughout the entire NCR has deteriorated to the point where lung and respiratory
ailments are on the rise

Some areas of Gotham along with four surrounding states; Westeros, Narnia, Medal city and
Hulk city, which are commonly referred to as ‘Agriculture Based State (“ABS”). ABS region is
employed towards rice-wheat crop rotation. Harvesting of these food crops with combine
harvesters is very popular with the famers of this region. These combine harvesting techniques in
rice-wheat system leaves behind large quantities of straw reside in the field.

Crop residue is burnt openly by the farmer to clear the filed for the next sowing season.
Scientific data shows that burning of straw leads to emission of gases like CO2, CH4, CO, N2O,
NOX, SO2 and large number of particulates which cause adverse impacts on environment and
health. The smoke is likely to travel as far as Gotham, some 250km (155 miles) away, adding to
the national capital's toxic haze. It has created a massive public health crisis - its fumes pollute
swathes of northern Kings Landing and endanger the health of hundreds of millions of people.
And it's more dangerous this year with Covid-19 ravaging the country as pollution makes people
more vulnerable to infection and slows their recovery.

In exercise of its powers under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 the Central government
brought a notification (“Notification”) to be implemented with the immediate effect, putting an
absolute and immediate ban on the activities of stubble burning and prescribing a fine of Rupees
1,00,000/- per incidence of stubble burning by a farmer in NCR.

As per the Notification, the existing benefits under minimum support price scheme (“MSP
Scheme”) will be withdrawn from such farmers who are found to be indulging even in a single
incidence of stubble burning.

Aggrieved by this “Natural Agriculture Moment” (“NA Moment”) filed Public interest litigation
against the government to issue the appropriate writ.

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Natural Agriculture Moment in Writ Petition No. XXXX/2021 has approached the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Marvel Land with ORDERXXXVIII of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013

The parties most humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court

v
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the notification by the government of Kings landing is unconstitutional?

- Whether the state has failed in its duty and obligation to protect and improve the
environment?

vi
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The ‘notification’ by the central government is unconstitutional as it violates the farmer’s

right to equality. The notification has been implemented to curb the air pollution in the NCR
region of Kings Landing but is arbitrary and unreasonable. It leaves those small & marginal
farmers in hardship who are being directly targeted by the notification. The government fails
to do reasonable classification as there existed a class of farmers who are not able to avail the
benefits due to their incompetency and ban has left them is grave consequences of getting
unreasonably penalised. Further, it violates the fundamental right to farmer’s life &
livelihood guaranteed by the Constitution of Kings landing as it completely ignores the
prevailing condition of these small & marginal farmers.

II. The state has failed to fulfil its duty and obligation to protect and improve the environment
guaranteed under Constitution of Kings landing as inefficient schemes by the government
have failed to curd the menace of air pollution and simply punishing the farmers is not an
ultimate solution. To provide them with basic facilities, amenities and modern equipment is
the call of the day which has not taken place and the benefit has been seized by the usurper
which means to say mostly by the big farmers. There are other major sources which comprise
to air pollution but as remain unattended by the state

Thus, it is contented that the ‘Notification’ declaring a ban on stubble burning declared to be
unconstitutional and hereby has been urge to demarcate the proper mechanism for the these
small & marginal farmers in justice, equity & conscience.

vii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE ‘NOTIFICATION’ BY THE GOVERNMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable court on the basis of its two submissions; (a) The
“Notification” is in violation of Article 14 and, (b) The Notification is in violation of Article 21.

a) The ‘Notification’ is in violation of Article 14.

The notification is in violation of the farmer’s fundamental right to equality as; the notification is
unreasonable and arbitrary.

The state shall not deny to any person equality before law & equal protection of laws within the
territory.1

All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities
imposed.2 A legislature is entitled to make reasonable classification for purposes of legislation.
Classification to be ‘reasonable’-

(i) Must be based on an intelligible differentia.

(ii) Must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question.

If these are not satisfied the statute in question would be deemed unconstitutional.3

The test of arbitrariness states that every state action must be non arbitrary and reasonable.4

The objective sought to be achieved by the Republic of Kings Landing by implementing the
‘Notification’ was to curb the problems of air pollution in the sizeable population of NCR.

However, the classification made in the notification by the central government was not based on
reasonable classification but in fact it is class legislation. Thus, the differentia was not
intelligible.

Class Legislation is something which makes improper discrimination and provides privilege to a
class of people arbitrarily selected from among large group of persons who stands on the

1
INDIA CONSTI. Art 14
2
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611
3
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
4
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344.

1
footing,5 thereby making an unreasonable distinction between the classes and is arbitrary,
artificial or evasive in nature6

The legislature is required to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of
human relations. 7 This article forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable
classification. 8

The implication was that stubble burning was banned. There is lot of hardship that has been
faced by the particularly small & marginal farmers due to inefficient implementation of the
government schemes. Moreover, it even had the implication of unreasonably banning the stubble
burning with the immediate effect when there are no alternative methods left with them for the
disposal of crop residue. Moreover, the concept of equality does not mandate that identical and
same law should be applicable to everyone in spite of different and varying needs.

Identical treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality.9

Inequalities amongst individuals are natural. They are nothing either to be proud of or guilty
about. Nature is neither just nor unjust. Inequalities are facts. However, what is just or unjust is
the way that institutions deal with these facts. The ‘notification’ targeted all categories of farmers
and does not differentiate among the classes of farmers.

Rule of law requires that no person shall be subjected to harsh, uncivilized or discriminatory
treatment even when the object is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law and order10

The State Governments self created bankruptcy or paucity of funds cannot be a guise, not to
discharge its obligation.11

The Government is not able to provide financial support to these small and marginal farmers.
The Cooperative Societies give the machines on hire basis, which cannot be afforded by the
small and marginal farmers and leave them no alternative method except of stubble burning.
Inter alia, most of the air pollution is caused by the other events such as construction and
demolitions activities, open dumping of waste-garbage, unpaved roads, road dust, traffic
5
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958
6
Ibid
7
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Pg 881, 2014.
8
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564
9
Abdul Rehman v. Pinto AIR 1951 HYD 11
10
Rubinder Singh v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 65
11
Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1622

2
congression.12 Since, there exists other major cause which comprises of air pollution, solely
targeting the agriculture and implementing ban would hamper the objective that is sought to be
achieved by such notification.

Furthermore, agriculture is the backbone of the economy of this country. These farmers interest
cannot be overlooked and self-created bankruptcy cannot rescue it when the State has the
obligation towards the agriculture. They cannot ignore the interest of the small and marginal
farmers. It is the bounden duty of the Central as well as the State Government to ensure the
interest of these classes of farmers is catered and they have the facilities of farming and
harvesting by modern machines.

In case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India13, The Government issued an office memorandum
announcing a liberalized pension scheme for retired government servants but made it applicable
to those who had retired after 31 March 1979. The Supreme Court held that the fixing of the
cutoff date to be discriminatory as violating Article 14. The division of pensioners into two
classes on the basis of the date of retirement was not based on any rational principle because a
difference of two days in the matter of retirement could have a traumatic effect on the pensioner.
Such a classification held to be arbitrary and unprincipled as there was no acceptable or
persuasive reason in its favors. The said classification had no rational nexus with the object
sought to achieve.

b) The ‘Notification’ is in violation of Article 21.

The notification is in violation of the fundamental right of the farmers to life and livelihood.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law.14

‘Right to life’ guaranteed by Art. 21 includes the ‘right to livelihood’15

If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the
easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be deprive to deprive him of his
means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.16

12
Proposition
13
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (2) 185
14
INDIA CONST. art 21
15
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109
16
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp., AIR 1986 SC 180

3
In D.K Yadav v. J.M.A Industries, 17 the court held that the right to life enshrined under Article
21 includes the right to livelihood and therefore termination of the service of worker without
giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing is unjust, arbitrary & illegal. The procedure
prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and so it
must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the
glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence.18

In MC Mehta v. Union of India 19, rights & benefits were entitled to the marginal workers to
protect their right to livelihood and followed the guiding principle of sustainable development.

In the present case, the ‘prevailing conditions’ are that of Farmers. It should be considered that in
the highly competitive and time exhaustive environment, stubble burning is often the most easily
and speedily available choice. Moreover, especially to the small and marginal farmers who are
left with no alternative method, like the one to which the petitioner belongs. The initiatives taken
by the government is generally available to the top notch of the hierarchy and doesn’t trickle
down efficient to these small & marginal farmers. The immediate ban on stubble burning with no
inefficient measures has failed to take account of the prevailing conditions of the farmers and is
thus unreasonable. Moreover, the Act was made only in the interests of environment and to curb
air pollution. However, it was imposed merely for a section of the people and not to the general
public thus rendering it unreasonable.

Further, in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India20, it was held that-

The goals set out in Part IV have, therefore, to be achieved without the abrogation of the means
provided for by Part III”. Therefore, the Act cannot be defended on public interest by a mere
reference to Article 47.

Similarly, thoughtless notification can cause unavoidable harm to the environment as well as it
can deprive the people of their right to livelihood which has happened in the present case.

17
D.K Yadav v. J.M.A Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258
18
J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Pg 290
19
MC Mehta v. Union of India 1997 2 SCC 353
20
Minerva Mills Ltd.v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789

4
Therefore, due to violation of Article 14 & 21, this court should declare the ‘notification’ by the
government as unconstitutional.

II. THE STATE HAS FAILED IN ITS FUNDAMENTAL DUTY TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE
ENVIRONMENT.

It is humbly submitted before this honorable that; the state has failed to fulfill its fundamental
duty to protect and improve the environment as;

a) State has failed to comply its fundamental duties guaranteed by the Constitution of
Kings Landing

Article 48A cast a duty upon a state to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard
forest and wild life of the country.21

Similarly, it is a fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living
creatures of the country.22

Both these provisions not only highlight the national consensus on the importance of
environmental protection but also lay the foundation for a judicially administered jurisprudence
of environmental protection in the country.

Protection of environment is not only the duty of every citizen but the ‘obligation’ of the state
and all other state organs.23

The failure to abide by or to perform the duty is nothing short of a betrayal of the fundamental
law which every citizen is bound to uphold, inclusive of State.24

The State Governments self created bankruptcy or paucity of funds cannot be a guise, not to
discharge its obligation.25

In the present case, inefficient schemes by the government have failed to curd the menace of air
pollution and simply punishing the farmers is not an ultimate solution. To provide them with

21
INDIA CONST. art 48A
22
INDIA CONST. art.51A (g)
23
T. Damodhar Rao. S.O municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171
24
Kinkari Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 HP 4
25
Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1622

5
basic facilities, amenities and modern equipment is the call of the day which has not taken place
and the benefit has been seized by the usurper which means to say mostly by the big farmers.

The fallacies can be pointed out in applying odd−even scheme with respect to cars alone cannot
be said to be a wholesome solution.26

In the absence of effective public transport, two-wheelers and three-wheelers plying have not
been stopped. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely necessary to have an effective public transport
system in order to ensure that plying of private vehicles is minimized. Until and unless the
Government fulfills its obligation to provide an effective public transport system, private
vehicles are bound to be plied and adding to the problem.

The reports point out that 28% of the total pollution is caused by vehicular traffic. Though
pollution by stubble burning was reduced to 5%, one of the major factors for pollution is
construction and demolition activities. Agriculture burning is adding to 4%, and industries are
causing 30%, residential sector in the form of Bio Mass, Kerosene and LPG are adding to 10% in
total.

Further, there are other factors are responsible for causing pollution such as; Construction and
demolition activities, open dumping of waste/ garbage, unpaved roads/ pits, road dust, garbage
burning, traffic congestion.

26
Proposition

6
 PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is most humbly and respectfully prayed before the Honorable Supreme Court, that it may be
pleased to :-

 Uphold the Writ No. XXXX/2021 and declare the ‘notification’ as unconstitutional.

And pass any other order in favor of the Petitioner which this Court may so deem fit in the ends
of equity, justice and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: Gotham Counsel No. 37P

Date: 9th Sept, 21 Counsel for the Petitioner