Respondent's Memorial-1

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

BABU BANARASI DAS UNIVERSITY
Team Code: 29
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
Laxpur Environmental Action Group & Others

…….(PETITIONER)
V.
Raghusthan Textiles LTD.
…….(RESPONDENT)
ON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIAINA
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIANIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………. 4
CASE LAWS…………………………………………………………….. 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………... 6
SUMMARY OF FACTS………………………………………………… 7-8
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………… 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………... 10-11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………….. 12-24
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………. 25
Page | 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

ALD Administrative Law Decision
Ed. Edition
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
s. Section
v. Versus
WR(CR) Criminal Weekly Reporter
u/s Under Section
RR Revised report
RTL Raghusthan Textiles Ltd
LEAG Laxpur Environmental Action Group
RSPCB Raghusthan State Pollution Control
Board
NCAP National Clean Air Programme
NGT National Green Tribunal
Page | 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. BOOKS REFERRED
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
1. V.N.SHUKLA’S, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TWELFTH EDITIONION.

2. J.N.PANDEY’S, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
3. S.N.MISHRA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
4. M.P.JAIN, INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEXISNEXIS, INDIA
B. WEBSITES REFERRED
1. https://www.livelaw.in/
2. www.indiakanoon.org
3. www.scconline.com
4. www.legalserviceindia.com
5. www.legalsutra.org
Page | 4
CASE LAWS
1. A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V. Nayudu

2. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Rohit Prajapati and Others
3. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
5. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
6. Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors
7. The Vedanta case
8. The Sterlite Industries case
9. Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka
Page | 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
We are respondent in the course of action.
Page | 6
SUMMARY OF FACTS
I. Indiana is known for its rich variety of life and natural resources on earth. Over the
last few years, there has been an immense increase in industrial activities and
urbanization which led to deterioration of environment and harm to the habitants of
local communities.
II. The ‘Right to Clean Environment’, is guaranteed by the constitution of Indiana as one
of the principal fundamental rights to its citizens. The courts of Indiana actively acts as
a “GUARDIAN” for protecting the environment and upholding the rights of citizens.
III. Raghusthan textiles Ltd. (RTL) situated in Laxpur, Raghusthan, one of the states in
Indiana, is a large textile industry. Lately RTL has amplified its operation and expanded
its production capacity, leading to deterioration of environment in residential areas.
IV. The local natives living around the plant have reported increased health issues which
includes Respiratory issues, Skin diseases and Gastrointestinal illnesses and it is
believed by them that the pollution emitted by the plant is cause of the above
mentioned health problems. Significant decline in the quality of air and water in the
area has also been noticed.
V. Air quality tests in the area surrounding the plant were conducted by The Local
Environmental Regulator, THE RAGHUSTAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD (RSPCB) and it was found that the levels of SULPHUR DIOXIDE and
PARTICULATE MATTERS were remarkably higher than the permissible limits set
by the environment regulations.
VI. The RSPCB discovered that the plant had not installed proper and obligatory pollution
control devices to minimise harmful emissions.
VII. The RSPCB grounded in that the harm to the Aquatic life and pollution to the water
supply of the downstream communities is caused by the discharge of untreated
wastewater into the nearby river by the plant.
VIII. The RSPCB has furnished several notices to RTL over the years , instructing the
company to take proper measures to control its pollution levels and to act in
accordance with environmental regulations . In spite of this RTL has resumed to
violate environmental norms and has failed to take sufficient measures to reduce its
impact on the environment and local communities.
Page | 7
IX. In response of these emerging problem several citizens and environmental

organisations , including the LAXPUR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP
(LEAG) , have filed a WRIT in the Raghusthan High Court challenging the RTL’s
activities and endeavouring suitable remedies,
And they stated that the RTL’s activity infringed the fundamental right provided
under ARTICLE 21 of Indiana Constitution .and also the several other environmental
laws and regulations, including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act,1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
X. RTL contended that their activities are important for economic growth and they have
taken sufficient measures to comply with the regulations and they also stated that they
have taken several measures to control its pollution levels by infusing advanced
pollution control technologies and frequently observing its emissions through a team
of experts.
XI. LEAG and other organizations have contended the Government has also failed in
securing the rights of citizens and protecting the environment, they stated that the
government is too merciful in enforcement of environmental regulations and allowed
corporations like RTL to violate environmental norms with certain liberties.
XII. The High Court held that RTL is not guilty of violating constitutional norms and
environmental regulations and it dismissed the case against RTL.
XIII. Discontented by the decision of High Court, Special Leave Petition was filed before
the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Page | 8
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether it
is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the constitutional and environmental issues
raised in a case.
ISSUE 2
Whether RTL’S activities violate the fundamental rights to a clean and healthy
environment guaranteed under ARTICLE 21 of the Indian Constitution.
ISSUE 3
Whether RTL has taken adequate measures to control its pollution levels and
comply with environmental regulations, and whether these measures are sufficient
to protect the environment and public health.
ISSUE 4
Whether the government has failed in its duty to protect the environment and a
right of citizens. and whether it needs to take more proactive measures to regulate
industrial activities and enforce environmental regulations.
Page | 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether it
is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the constitutional and environmental issues
raised in a case.
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Article 136 of the Indian
Constitution grants discretionary powers to the Supreme Court of India to allow special
leave petitions. The Supreme Court can use this power in exceptional circumstances
and when a question of law arises.
➢ It is upon the discretion of the court to grant such a petition or not. An SLP must be
filed within the limitation period mentioned in the Supreme Court Rules. Special leave
petitions are granted so that justice is granted if the lower court has failed to consider
some evidence or the court did not use fair means in concluding the case. Special leave
petitions can be granted in both civil and criminal cases, but the Supreme Court must
exercise extra care and skill in deciding criminal cases.
2. Whether RTL’S activities violate the fundamental rights to a clean and healthy
➢ There are valid concerns about the environmental impact of RTL's operations, it is
important to recognize that the company is also a key contributor to the local economy
and has taken several measures to mitigate its impact on the environment and public
health. Any legal action or regulatory intervention should take these factors into
account and aim to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental
protection.
➢ There are valid arguments to be made that RTL's activities has not violated the
fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution.
3. Whether RTL has taken adequate measures to control its pollution levels and
➢ RTL claims that it has taken several measures to control its pollution
levels, including investing in advanced pollution control technologies and
regularly monitoring its emissions through a dedicated team of environmental experts
who monitor the plant's operations and ensure compliance with environmental
Page | 10
regulations which suggests that the RTL has taken proper steps to control the emissions
of harmful substances in the environment so that the life of the people living there and
the protection of the environment from these emissions have been preserved.
4. Whether the government has failed in its duty to protect the environment and a
right of citizens. and whether it needs to take more proactive measures to regulate
industrial activities and enforce environmental regulations.
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the government has not
failed in its duty to protect the environment and the rights of citizens, as firstly RTL
agreed that it has taken several measures to control its pollution levels, including
investing in advanced pollution control technologies and regularly monitoring its
emissions through a dedicated team of environmental experts who monitor the plant's
operations and ensure compliance with environmental regulations.
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that government is already
taking proactive measures to regulate industrial activities and also enacted many Acts
to prevent environmental pollution such as Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981, Environment (Protection) Act,1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act,1974.
Page | 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether it
is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the constitutional and environmental
issues raised in a case.
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Article 136 of the Indian
Constitution grants discretionary powers to the Supreme Court of India to allow
special leave petitions. The Supreme Court can use this power in exceptional
circumstances and when a question of law arises.
➢ Generally, the Supreme Court is the only body that is allowed to grant a special leave
petition, but sometimes tribunals recognized by the law can also grant SLP. These
tribunals must possess the power to resolve legal issues that can arise among the
citizens of India. These tribunals must have the same powers that a court possesses,
like calling a witness, examining the witness on oath, reviewing the
evidence, and much more.
➢ The Supreme Court can also exercise its discretionary power to refuse to grant
special leave of petition. It must exercise its power when there is a gross negligence.
➢ Supreme Court of India in A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V. Nayudu1referred
to the need for establishing Environmental Courts which would have the benefit of
expert advice from environmental scientists/technically qualified persons, as a part of
miscarriage of justice. The judicial process, after an elaborate discussion of the views
of jurists of various countries. The Supreme Court must not interfere with the findings
of fact, even if the Supreme Court has different views on the evidence. The Supreme
Court will not review the evidence unless the high court has made an error in the
process of law.
➢ Allowing the Supreme Court to adjudicate these types of issues could set a dangerous
precedent, opening the floodgates for similar cases and potentially harming the ability
of private companies to operate effectively.
➢ The Supreme Court will interfere in cases where the high court has violated the
principles of natural justice or has acted in violation of the provisions of the law.
1 (1999(2) SCC 718) dated 27.1. 1999
Page | 12
The Supreme Court must also interfere in cases where the high court has inferred
wrong conclusions from the evidence. Special leave petitions provide residuary power
in the hands of the Supreme Court.
• It is upon the discretion of the court to grant such a petition or not. An SLP must be
filed within the limitation period mentioned in the Supreme Court Rules. Special
leave petitions are granted so that justice is granted if the lower court has failed to
consider some evidence or the court did not use fair means in concluding the case.
Special leave petitions can be granted in both civil and criminal cases, but the
Supreme Court must exercise extra care and skill in deciding criminal cases.
• The Supreme Court may not be the appropriate forum to adjudicate the constitutional
and environmental issues raised in the case, as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is
specifically designated to handle environmental disputes. In Alembic
Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Rohit Prajapati and Others2, the Supreme Court noted
that the NGT is the expert body designated to deal with environmental disputes and
held that the matter should be referred to the NGT.
• The petitioner has not exhausted all available remedies before approaching the
Supreme Court, as the NGT provides a forum for addressing environmental disputes.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India3, the Supreme Court held that
a petition should not be entertained by the court if the petitioner has not exhausted all
available remedies, including those provided by specialized tribunals like the NGT.
These arguments suggest that the activities of RTL are lawful, contribute to economic
development and provide employment opportunities, and that the NGT may be a more
appropriate forum to address the environmental issues raised in the case.
2. Whether RTL’S activities violate the fundamental rights to a clean and healthy
While there are valid concerns about the environmental impact of RTL's operations, it
is important to recognize that the company is also a key contributor to the local
economy and has taken several measures to mitigate its impact on the environment
and public health
2 1st April 2020

3 August, 1996, AIR 1996 SC 2715: (1996) 5 SCC 647
Page | 13
2.1 RTL is a major contributor for economic growth of the country.

RTL’s textile manufacturing operations are necessary for economic growth and job
creation in the region. The company provides employment to thousands of people in the
local community and contributes significantly to the economy of Raghusthan. Shutting
down the plant or imposing additional environmental regulations would have a
detrimental impact on the local economy and the livelihoods of people who depend on
the company for their income.
2.2 RTL has adopted adequate measure for pollution control.

RTL taken several measures to control its pollution levels and comply with
environmental regulations. The company has invested in advanced pollution control
technologies and has a dedicated team of environmental experts who monitor the plant's
operations and ensure compliance with environmental norms. The company regularly
monitors its emissions and takes corrective actions to address any issues that are
identified. These measures are sufficient to protect the environment and public health,
and any additional regulations or penalties would be unnecessary and unfair.
2.3 RTL has complied with the law and norms.

RTL has not violated any environmental regulations or constitutional norms. The
company has received several notices from the Raghusthan State Pollution Control
Board (RSPCB) over the years, but it has always taken prompt action to address the
issues raised by the regulator. The company has also been transparent in its reporting
and has regularly shared data with the RSPCB and other stakeholders. Any allegations
of non-compliance or environmental harm are unfounded and lack evidence.
2.4 RTL is a Responsible Corporate Citizen.
RTL is committed to being a responsible corporate citizen and minimizing its impact
on the environment and local communities. The company has implemented several
social and environmental programs to support sustainable development and promote
community well-being. These programs include initiatives to reduce waste, conserve
water, and promote biodiversity. The company has also partnered with local NGOs and
community organizations to address social and environmental challenges in the region.
While there are valid concerns about the environmental impact of RTL's operations, it
is important to recognize that the company is also a key contributor to the local
economy and has taken several measures to mitigate its impact on the environment and
Page | 14
public health. Any legal action or regulatory intervention should take these factors into
account and aim to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental
protection.
Another argument in favour of RTL is that the company has taken several measures to
control its pollution levels, including investing in advanced pollution control
technologies and regularly monitoring its emissions through a dedicated team of
environmental experts who monitor the plant’s operations and ensure compliance with
environmental regulations.
RTL could also argue that it is a major employer in the region and contributes
significantly to the local economy. Shutting down the plant or imposing strict
environmental regulations could lead to job losses and economic hardship for the
region. The company could also argue that it is necessary to strike a balance between
economic growth and environmental protection and that it has taken steps to mitigate its
impact on the environment.
Furthermore, RTL could argue that the government has not provided clear guidelines or
support for companies to comply with environmental regulations. The company could
argue that it is willing to comply with environmental norms, but it is not clear what the
standards are or how to meet them. The government should provide clear guidelines
and support to companies to enable them to comply with environmental regulations.
RTL could argue that the case should be dismissed as it has not violated any
environmental regulations or constitutional norms. The company could argue that the
allegations are baseless and that it has taken adequate measures to control its pollution
levels and comply with environmental regulations. Therefore, the court should dismiss
the case against RTL. One argument in favour of RTL could be that the company has
taken adequate measures to control its pollution levels and comply with environmental
regulations. The company could argue that it has invested in advanced pollution control
technologies and regularly monitors its emissions through a dedicated team of
environmental experts who ensure compliance with environmental regulations.
In support of this argument, RTL could refer to the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India4, where the Supreme Court of India held that the "polluter pays" principle should
be applied in cases of environmental degradation caused by industries. The court held
4 (1997) 1 SCC 388
Page | 15
that the responsibility for pollution control and remediation lies with the industry, and
that the cost of such measures should be borne by the industry.
The company could also cite the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India5 , where the Supreme Court held that industries have a responsibility to protect
the environment and to take measures to prevent pollution.
The company could cite the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union
of India6, where the Supreme Court held that the economic development of the country
should be balanced with environmental protection. The court held that development and
environmental protection are not mutually exclusive and that sustainable development
is essential for the progress of the country.
In summary, RTL could argue that it has taken adequate measures to comply with
environmental regulations and that its activities are necessary for economic growth.
The company could cite relevant case law to support its arguments and emphasize the
need for balanced development and environmental protection.
3. Whether RTL has taken adequate measures to control its pollution levels and
RTL has taken adequate measures to control its pollution levels and comply with
environmental regulations. The company has invested in advanced pollution control
technologies and regularly monitors its emissions through a dedicated team of
environmental experts who ensure compliance with environmental regulations. RTL
has also taken measures to reduce its water usage and recycle waste materials. The
company has implemented a comprehensive environmental management system that
ensures that all of its operations comply with environmental regulations.
RTL has also contributed significantly to the economic growth of the region, providing
employment to local residents and contributing to the development of the local
economy. The company has also supported several social welfare initiatives, including
providing education and healthcare facilities to local communities.
The RSPCB's findings do not necessarily indicate that RTL has failed to comply with
environmental regulations. The RSPCB's tests may have been conducted during periods
of high production, which may have resulted in higher emissions levels. Moreover, the
5 August, 1996, AIR 1996 SC 2715: (1996) 5 SCC 647

6 1966 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212
Page | 16
RSPCB may not have taken into account the measures that RTL has taken to control its
pollution levels.
The RSPCB's testing of air and water quality in the surrounding area may not
accurately reflect the impact of RTL's operations, as it does not take into account other
sources of pollution or natural factors that can affect air and water quality.
In addition, the local communities and environmental organizations have not provided
conclusive evidence that RTL's activities are directly responsible for the health
problems reported in the area. Other factors, such as poor sanitation and hygiene
practices, may be contributing to the health problems reported in the area.
• Restrictions on use of certain industrial plants: Section 21 of Air (Prevention and
control of Pollution) Act,1981 of talks about setting up of industrial plants in
compliance and with the consent of the respective State Board. It prescribes the
procedure for making an application to the Board, for which a decision has to be made
and intimated to the applicant regarding whether he has permission to set up the plant
or not. The conditions are also given for setting up the plant. These should be complied
with, otherwise, the permission for the plant can be revoked. The conditions under
Section 21(5) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 are-
• The necessary control equipment as stipulated by the State Board has to be installed in
the plant. This equipment has to be changed according to the decisions and instructions
of the State Board. The equipment has to be kept in good running condition.
• Chimneys should be erected when and where the Board so directs. Persons carrying on
industry, etc., not to allow emission of air pollutants in excess of the standard laid down
by State Board. Section 22 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 states
that no person heading an industry shall emit any excess amount of emissions than the
standards set out by the State Board.
➢ With the compliance of the given rules, and after findings of the high court the Board
has failed to established that the discharge of factory causes health damages to the
person or people living there.
All the appropriate measures have been taken care of while establishing and running of
the factory.
➢ As per the Water pollution prevention act, which state that the industry should avoid the
discharge of harmful pollutants in water but the board fails to mention that There was
any discharge of pollutants which would have been impacted the health of people living
Page | 17
in that area. Section 24 and 43 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 relate to prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter and
penalty for contravention thereof Under the scope of the provision:-
no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting mater
as determined by the State Board to enter into any stream or sewer or on land.
➢ Therefore With the reference of the judgement of the high court judgements the RTL
has taken appropriate measures for controlling the water pollution as there were no
any evidence which suggests that the water has been contaminated by the RTL itself
or by malice act of the RTL.
➢ RTL further claims that it has taken several measures to control its pollution
levels, including investing in advanced pollution control technologies and
regularly monitoring its emissions through a dedicated team of environmental experts
who monitor the plant's operations and ensure compliance with environmental
regulations which suggests that the RTL has taken proper steps to control the
emissions of harmful substances in the environment so that the life of the people
living there and the protection of the environment from these emissions
have been preserved.
RTL’s activities are necessary for economic growth and job creation, which is
essential for the welfare of the community.
4. Whether the government has failed in its duty to protect the environment and a
right of citizens. and whether it needs to take more proactive measures to
regulate industrial activities and enforce environmental regulations.
➢ The government has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment: Article
48A of the Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on the State to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Additionally, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen of India to
protect and improve the natural environment.
➢ The argument in favour of the government is that it has implemented several
environmental laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment and citizens'
rights. For example, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 have set out standards for
industries to comply with and have given regulators such as the Raghusthan State
Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) the power to enforce these regulations. The
Page | 18
government has also established bodies such as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to
hear environmental disputes and provide remedies for environmental harm.
Furthermore, the government has taken several measures to promote sustainable
development and reduce environmental impact. The government has launched various
initiatives such as the National Clean Energy Fund and the National River Conservation
Plan to address environmental challenges. The government has also encouraged the use
of renewable energy sources and has set targets for reducing carbon emissions. In the
case of RTL, the RSPCB has issued several notices to the company directing it to
comply with environmental regulations and take measures to control its pollution
levels. The fact that the RSPCB has taken action against RTL shows that the
government is actively enforcing environmental regulations and holding corporations
accountable for their environmental impact. Additionally, the government has the
power to revoke licenses and permits of companies that repeatedly violate
environmental regulations. If RTL continues to violate environmental norms, the
government can take further action against the company. Therefore, it can be argued
that the government has not failed in its duty to protect the environment and citizens'
rights. The government has taken proactive measures to regulate industrial activities
and enforce environmental regulations, and it has the power to take further action
against companies that violate environmental norms. One of the ways in which the
government has fulfilled its duty to protect the environment and the rights of citizens is
through the creation of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010. The NGT was
established to provide a specialized forum for the effective and expeditious disposal of
cases relating to environmental protection and conservation. The NGT has the power to
hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues and has jurisdiction over all matters
relating to the enforcement of environmental laws, including the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981,10 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The NGT has played a crucial role
in regulating industrial activities and enforcing environmental regulations. For example,
in the case of Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India & Ors 7, the NGT ordered the
closure of several industrial units in the state of Haryana that were operating without a
valid consent to operate and were polluting the environment. The NGT also imposed
heavy fines on the companies and directed them to take remedial measures to control
7 27 July, 2021
Page | 19
pollution. In another case, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India8, the Supreme Court of India
directed the closure of several tanneries in the state of Uttar Pradesh that were polluting
the Ganges River. The Supreme Court also ordered the central and state governments to
take measures to clean up the river and ensure that it remained free from pollution. The
government has also taken several measures to promote sustainable development and
reduce the environmental impact of industrial activities. For example, the government
has launched several initiatives such as the National Solar Mission, which aims to
promote the use of solar energy in the country, and the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, which
aims to clean up the streets, roads, and infrastructure of cities and towns in India.
Additionally, the government has enacted several laws and regulations to protect the
environment and promote sustainable development, including the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Coastal Regulation Zone
Notification, 2011. While there have been instances where the government has not been
able to fully enforce environmental regulations, the establishment of specialized forums
such as the NGT and the government’s efforts to promote sustainable development
demonstrate its commitment to protecting the environment and the rights of citizens.
➢ Recent cases where the Indian Government has taken action to protect the
environment include:
1. The Vedanta case: the Indian Supreme Court upheld the closure of a copper
smelting plant owned by Vedanta Limited in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. The plant was
accused of polluting the air and water in the surrounding areas, leading to health
problems for local residents. The court found that the plant had violated environmental
laws and ordered its closure.
2. The Sterlite Industries case9: the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board ordered the
closure of a copper smelting plant owned by Sterlite Industries in Thoothukudi, Tamil
Nadu, due to alleged violations of environmental laws. The plant was accused of
polluting the air and water in the surrounding areas, leading to health problems for local
residents. The case is still ongoing in the courts.
3. The Ganga river cleaning project 10: The Indian Government has launched a major
initiative to clean up the Ganga river, which is one of the most polluted rivers in the
world. The project includes measures such as setting up sewage treatment plants,
8 (1987) 4SCC 463

9 13 FEB 1996
10 JUNE 2014
Page | 20
promoting waste management, and enforcing environmental laws to prevent further

pollution of the river.
4. The Delhi air pollution case: The Indian Supreme Court has taken several measures
to address air pollution in Delhi, including banning the use of firecrackers during
Diwali, directing the closure of polluting industries, and ordering the implementation of
measures to control vehicular emissions. The Indian government has taken several
measures to protect the environment, including enacting laws and regulations, creating
institutions and agencies, and implementing policies to promote sustainable
development.
➢ Some of the recent and notable measures taken by the government to protect the
environment include:
1. National Clean Air Programme (NCAP): Launched in 2019, NCAP is a
comprehensive program aimed at reducing air pollution in 102 cities across India. The
program focuses on improving monitoring and tracking of air pollution levels, reducing
emissions from industries and vehicles, promoting public awareness and behavior
change, and strengthening institutional capacity to address air pollution.
2. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan: Launched in 2014, this campaign aims to make India
open defecation- free and achieve 100% scientific waste management. The campaign
has resulted in the construction of millions of toilets and increased awareness about the
need for proper sanitation and waste management.
3. National Green Tribunal (NGT): Established in 2010, NGT is a specialized court
that handles environmental disputes and violations. The tribunal has the power to hear
cases related to water and air pollution, forest conservation, and biodiversity
conservation. NGT has been instrumental in ensuring compliance with environmental
laws and regulations and has imposed heavy fines and penalties on industries and
individuals found violating environmental norms.
4. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: This act provides for the protection of wild animals
and plants, and aims to regulate hunting, poaching, and trade in wildlife. The act also
establishes national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and protected areas for the conservation
of wildlife and their habitats.
5. Clean Energy Initiatives: The Indian government has also launched several
initiatives to promote clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
government aims to increase the share of renewable energy in the country's energy mix
Page | 21
to 175 GW by 2022. Some of the key initiatives include the National Solar Mission, the
UJALA scheme, and the National Biofuel Policy.
6. Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016: The Indian government has introduced
these rules to regulate the production, use, and disposal of plastic waste. The rules
impose responsibilities on manufacturers, retailers, and local authorities to ensure
proper collection, segregation, transportation, and disposal of plastic waste.
7. Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016: The Indian government has introduced
these rules to regulate the production, use, and disposal of plastic waste. The rules
impose responsibilities on manufacturers, retailers, and local authorities to ensure
proper collection, segregation, transportation, and disposal of plastic waste.
➢ Some notable cases where the government has taken action to protect the environment
include:
1. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India11: In this landmark case, the
Supreme Court of India held that industries that cause environmental pollution are
liable to pay compensation for damages caused to the environment and public
health. The court also established the principle of 'polluter pays' and held that the
polluter is responsible for bearing the cost of remediation.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India12: In this case, the Supreme Court of India issued
several orders to control air pollution in Delhi, including banning the use of diesel
generators and fireworks, and directing the closure of polluting industries. The court
also directed the government to shift polluting industries outside the city and
promote the use of public transport.
3. Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka13: In this case, the National
Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the Karnataka government to cancel 51 iron ore
mining leases for violating environmental norms and causing damage to the
environment. The NGT also imposed heavy fines on the mining companies and
ordered them to pay compensation for damages caused to the environment. One of
the recent measures taken by the Indian government to protect the environment is
the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, which aim to regulate and manage the
11 AIR 1996 SC 2715

12 AIR 1988 SC 1037; (1987) 4 SCC 463.
13 18 April, 2013
Page | 22
generation, storage, collection, transportation, processing, and disposal of plastic

waste. These rules mandate the phasing out of non-recyclable multilayered plastic,
and the establishment of a system for the extended producer responsibility, wherein
manufacturers and importers of plastic products are required to manage and dispose
of the plastic waste generated from their products.
In 2020, the Indian government launched the National Clean Air Programme
(NCAP), which aims to reduce air pollution levels by 20-30% in 102 cities by 2024.
The NCAP has identified the major sources of air pollution and formulated
strategies to mitigate them, such as the promotion of public transport and electric
vehicles, the adoption of clean technologies in industries, and the reduction of
emissions from the burning of crop residue. In 2017, the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) passed an order banning the use of disposable plastic in Delhi and the
National Capital Region (NCR) and directing the authorities to impose heavy
fines on violators. The NGT has also ordered the closure of industries causing
pollution and imposed fines on them for violating environmental norms. Another
notable case is the Sterlite Industries case, where the NGT in 2018 ordered the
closure of a copper smelting plant in Tamil Nadu, owned by Sterlite Industries, due
to its violation of environmental norms and causing pollution in the area. The NGT
found that the plant had been operating without adequate environmental clearances,
violating pollution norms, and discharging effluent waste into a nearby river. The
closure of the plant was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2019, citing concerns for
the environment and public health. Over all the Government of India has made
tremendous endeavour to stop pollution irrespective of any kind and in the present
case the Government made all endeavours to ensure
Page | 23
PRAYER
In light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the provisions
of the Indian Constitution applied and arguments advanced; and in light of the
scientific studies relating to the issue referred to, the respondent most humbly
prays that the Supreme Court to dismiss the Special leave petition and-
1. Declare that the Supreme Court has not the Jurisdiction to try the case in the
given matter of the facts.
2. Declare that the Respondent has not violated article 21 on the constitution of
Indiana.
3. Declare that the Respondent has taken adequate measure to control the
pollution levels and comply with the environmental regulation.
4. Declare that the Government has not failed his duty to protect the environment
and the rights of citizens.
And/or Pass
Any other order that it seems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience and for this the respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Counsel on behalf of the
Respondent
Page | 24

Respondent&#39;s Memorial-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Respondent&#39;s Memorial-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Laxpur Environmental Action Group & Others

ON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL LEAVE

MEMORANDUM OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

AIR All India Reporter

1. V.N.SHUKLA’S, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TWELFTH EDITIONION.

1. A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M.V. Nayudu

We are respondent in the course of action.

IX. In response of these emerging problem several citizens and environmental

1 (1999(2) SCC 718) dated 27.1. 1999

2 1st April 2020

2.1 RTL is a major contributor for economic growth of the country.

2.2 RTL has adopted adequate measure for pollution control.

2.3 RTL has complied with the law and norms.

4 (1997) 1 SCC 388

5 August, 1996, AIR 1996 SC 2715: (1996) 5 SCC 647

8 (1987) 4SCC 463

promoting waste management, and enforcing environmental laws to prevent further

11 AIR 1996 SC 2715

generation, storage, collection, transportation, processing, and disposal of plastic

Counsel on behalf of the

You might also like

Respondent's Memorial-1

Respondent's Memorial-1