RIZVI LAW COLLEGE PRIMERA MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2022

TEAM CODE:- R - 15

__________________________________________________________________________

RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

___________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA)

PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION(PIL)

PIL. NO.-----2019

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

MR. HARISH SING. …….. PETITIONER

VS.

UNION OF INDICA ……... RESPONDENT

___________________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

__________________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL APPEARING ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 LIST OF ABBEREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................3
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITY.............................................................................................................4
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................6
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................7
5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................8
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................9
7 ADVANCE ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................10
8 PRAYER.....................................................................................................................................11

___________________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 2|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

1 LIST OF ABBEREVIATIONS

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Art. Article
Sec. Section
Const. Constitution
Re. Reference
IPC Indian Penal Code
Hon’ble Honourable
WP Writ Petition
AIR All India Reporter
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Para Paragraph
Cl. Clause
Sub Cl. Subordinate Clause
SSC State Security Court
Misc. Miscellaneous
DPSP Directive Principle of State Policy
GST Goods and Services Tax
CG Central Government
Not. Notification
i.e. That is
& And
r/w Read with
a/w Along with
u/s Under Section
AQI Air Quality Index
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 3|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

Govt. Government
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
AAQCVs Ambient Air Quality Criteria Values
CSIR Council of Scientific & Industrial Research
NEERI National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
PESO Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

CASES CITED :-

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 4|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 5|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 6|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

It is most humbly submitted in this memorandum that the Petitioner has approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court under Art 321 of the Constitution of Indica and the respondents
humbly contest the same.

The respondents humbly submit before the jurisdiction of the present court and accepts that it
has the power and authority to preside over the present case.

1
“Article 32 in the Constitution of India, 1950”
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 7|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The union of Indica is a highly populated country with many manufacturing hubs.
The state of Gehli is 1 such state in Indica known for its robust industries essentially
comprising of various factories many of which pertain to the firecrackers industry.
Taking this industry into consideration it was observed that it provides employment
and generates a revenue to the tune of Rs.6000 crores per annum, 60% of which is
generated in the month of October and November. These firecrackers are even
exported to various countries, which bolster Indica’s economy.

 However, the month of October and November also witness stubble burning on a
large scale in the rural parts of Gelhi. Owing to the above factors, the air pollution in
the state has increased, deteriorating the air-quality and leading to extreme respiratory
disorders. According to the report published by the world health organisation, the
state of Gelhi was worst performed area in the world during the last two months.

 In order to curb this problem, the central government issued directions by Notification
No. CDALD-0102019-AB, under Section 3 r/w Section 5 of the Environment
Protection Act, 1986, in the larger interest. The directions included, non-usage of and
prohibition of bursting of firecrackers for the month of October and November and an
absolute ban on their manufacture sale and purchased for the aforesaid months in the
state of Gelhi.

 Harish Singh, chairman of the Association of firecrackers, on behalf of the Vendors

and manufacturers, being aggrieved by the directions issued by the central
government filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging the said directions. The
directions were challenged on the grounds that they were violating of article 14,
19(1)g and 21 of the Constitution of India. The matter is hence kept for hearing.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 8|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the Directions passed by the Central Government infringes the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of Indica?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 9|Page

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.Whether the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is maintainable or not?

It is humbly contended that present PIL is not maintainable central government has passed
notification in the present case after applying it’s power rightfully and mind cautiously. It is
further contended that substantive and procedural law are duty adhered to by the Central
Government to meet ends of justice. Present PIL before Hon’ble Supreme court is not
maintainable as:
A) The petitioner has not exhausted all the claims or remedies which is provided.

B) Central Government has power under Sec 3 a/w Sec S of The Environment (Protection)
Act 1986; Sec 31A, Sec 42 a/w Sec 53 and Sec 54 of The Air (Prevention and control of
pollution) Act, 1981; also umder rules of Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000
to take necessary steps for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the
environment.

C) Also as per the PIL guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India, complaints against
Central/ State Government Departments and Local Bodies will not be entertained as Public
Interest Litigation and these may be returned to the petitioners.

2. Whether the Directions passed by the Central Government infringes the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of Indica?

The directions passed by the central government does not infringes the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the constitution of INDICA as the fundamental rights which are
guaranteed comes along with some reasonable restrictions.
The Fundamental rights including Article 14, Article 19 (1) (g), Article 21 has not been
violated. These fundamental rights are not absolute but are subject to certain reasonable
restrictions which are already enshrined in the Cis, of the respective Articles. The Supreme
Court on varjous occasions have held that Fundamental rights are subject to reasonable
restrictions and are not absolute.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 10 | P a g e

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

7 ADVANCE ARGUMENT

1.Whether the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the Directions passed by the Central Government infringes the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of Indica?

No, the Directions passed by the Central Government does not infringes the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of Indica. Part III of the Constitution of
India i.e. Fundamental rights have certain reasonable restrictions which can be imposed by
the respective Governments and has been enumerated in the Constitution.

None of the Fundamental rights including Article 14, Article 19 (1) (g), Article 21 have
been violated at all. These fundamental rights are not absolute but are subject to certain
reasonable restrictions which are already enshrined in the Clauses of the respective Articles.
The Supreme Court on various occasions have held that Fundamental rights are subject to
reasonable restrictions and are not absolute.

2.1 The directions issued by the Respondent do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution
of Indica.
Right to Equality and Environment Protection (Article 14):
Equality before the law and equal protection of the law has been granted under article 14 of
the Constitution. This fundamental right impliedly casts a duty upon the state to be fair while
taking actions in regard to environmental protection and thus, cannot infringe article 14.

Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949 The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The said Article is
clearly in two parts while it commands the State not to deny to any person equality before
law, it also commands the State not to deny the equal protection of the laws.

Exceptions In Right To Equality

The following exception to the ‘equality before law’ in the Constitution of India is –
(1) The President or the Governor of the State shall not be liable in any court for the exercise
of the powers and duties of his office.
(2) No criminal processor shall be the start or continued against the President or the Governor
of a State in any court during his tenure.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 11 | P a g e

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

(3) No member of Parliament or State Legislature is obliged to appear before the court in any
case of criminal or civil while the session is going on. (Article 361-A)
(4) No member of Parliament or State Legislature is answerable to any court for the speeches,
opinion or vote given in the House. (Articles 105 and 194)
(5) Article 31(C) is the exception, according to this, by following the Directive Principles
State Policy, if a law is made under Article 39 which violates Article 14, it will be valid.
(6) If the foreign sovereigns (rulers), diplomates, and ambassadors done criminal or civil
crime then the state will not act on them by using equal proceeding. There are globally
accepted laws and processes for that.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 12 | P a g e

 RIZVI LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2021

8 PRAYER

WHEREOF, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited the respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The puublic Interest Litigation (PIL) is not maintainable

2. The Directions passed by the Central Government does not infringes the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of Indica

And may pass any other Order, Decree or Judgement as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the
interests of Justice, Equity, Fairness and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty bound forever pray.

SD/-
Counsels on behalf of the Respondent

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 13 | P a g e