IDBH 205

IDIA 2ND National PIL Drafting & Pleading Competition

Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA

In

NGO Jungle Bachao Enviro Society (Petitioner)

Vs
Union of Indiana (Respondent)

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIANA.
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.

~ MEMORENDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER~

 Table of Contents
Table of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ 4
Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................................................................. 7
Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 8
ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Summary of Arguments ................................................................................................................ 11
Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................... 12
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUION
OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE? ................................................................................................ 12
1.1 Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Republic of Indiana and AIDC
Corporation ............................................................................................................................ 12
1.2 Fundamental Rights have been violated .......................................................................... 13
1.3 Alternative Remedy is not a bar. ..................................................................................... 13
II. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES
ARE INFRINGED BY THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS? ................................................ 14
2.1 Violation of Article 21 ..................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Violation of Article 19 ..................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Indigenous people should be rehabilitated and relocate .................................................. 18
III. WHETHER REPUBLIC OF INDIANA AND AIDC CORPORATION ARE LIABLE
FOR ENVIRONMENT DEGRADATION. .............................................................................. 19
3.1. That the Government had not taken the consent of Rewa community before issuing the
order of dereservation of Redwood Forest ............................................................................ 19
3.2. Pollution caused by AIDC Corporation violated Fundamentals Rights of People......... 19
3.3. Environment Degradation by States Action ................................................................... 21
IV. DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED ....................................................................................... 22
4.1. Non-Compliance of Polluter Pay Principle .................................................................... 22
4.2. Compensation for Rehabilitation and Resettlement ....................................................... 22
Prayers........................................................................................................................................... 23

2|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Table of Abbreviations

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

SC Supreme Court

WP Writ Petition

UOI Union Of India

ART. Article

CONST. Constitution

ORS. Others

ILO International Labour Organisation

LTD. Limited

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights

3|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Table of Authorities

CASES
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121. ----------- 7
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325. -------------------------------------------------- 9
Board of Control for Cricket Versus Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 251. --- 6
CERC v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC ------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)1 SCC 613 -------------------------------------------------- 16
Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. v. UOI (1996) 10 SCC 104. ---------------------------------------------- 10
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 2 S.C.R. 516 --------- 9
Goa Foundation and Others v. State of Goa and Others, 2001 (3) BomCR 813. ------------------- 11
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514 ------------------------------- 9
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 3 SCC 212 --------------------------------- 16
M C Mehta v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 395. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.R. 819 ----------------------------------------------------- 8
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 S.C.R. 621 ------------------------------------------------ 9
MC Mehta v Kamal Nath, 1997, (1997) 1 SCC 388 ---------------------------------------------------- 10
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India , (2000) 10 SCC 664----------------------------------- 16
Noise Pollution- Prevention of Environment and Sound Pollution v. Union of India and Anr, AIR
2005 SC 3136. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545. ---------------------------------- 10
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689. ------------------------------------------------------ 9
Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors vs Indian Institute Of Chemical, 2002 (5) SCC. 111. -------------- 6
Rajesh Yadav v State of UP, (2019) 3 UPLBEC 1853.------------------------------------------------- 10
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566 -------------------------------------- 8
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086: (1983) 4 SCC 141 -------------------------------- 16
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 ----------------------------- 15
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & ors, AIR 1997 SC 3297. ------------------------------------- 10
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420. -------------------------------------------------- 14
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331. ---------------------------------------- 6
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021. --------------------------------------------- 9
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India, 1989 SCC (2) 540. ---------------------------------- 10
Waman Rao v. Union of India [1981] 2 SCR1 ---------------------------------------------------------- 10

STATUTES
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, § 2 (a), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1981
(India).------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Air Act (Prevention and Control of Pollution)1981, § 2 (a), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1981
(India).------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India). --------------------- 15

4|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, § 3,
No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India). ---------------------------------------------------------- 11, 12
THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, No.
2, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

RULES
Forest (Conservation) Rules,2022.------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

TREATISES
Article 12 of the ILO Convention -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
UN General Assembly, Article 17, Universal Declaration of Human Rights ----------------------- 12

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
INDIA CONST. art. 12. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6, 9
INDIA CONST. art. 19. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
INDIA CONST. art. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
INDIA CONST. art. 29. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
INDIA CONST. art. 342. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

Books
1. Basu D.D , Constitution of India ,14th edition 2009, LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur.
2. Behura N.K. Panigrahi Nilakantha, Tribals and the Indian Constitution, Edition 2006,
Rawat Publications.
3. Maheshwara N. Swamy, Law relating to Environmental Pollution and Protection, 2nd
Edition 2003, Asia Law House.
4. Rajendra Prasad, Law of Social Status, Edition 1998, Hindu Law House.
5. Banerjee, Digest of Land Acquisition & Compensation cases, 2nd Edition 1997, Ashoka
Law House.
6. Seervai H.M. , Constitutional law of India, 4th Edition 2002, Volume 2, Universal Book
Traders.
7. Shukla V.N , Constitution of India, 11th edition 2008, Eastern Book Company.
8. Singh Bhavjit, Digest of Land Acquisition & Compensation cases, Edition (20002010)
Law Times Publication.

5|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
9. Sumeet Malik, Environmental Law, 1st Edition 2008, Eastern Book Company.
10. Desai . A. Ashok, Environmental Jurisprudence , 2nd Edition 2002, Modern Law House.
11. Doabia T.S, Environmental & Pollution laws in India, 1st Edition 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur.
12. Jain M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Nagpur.
13. Jaswal P.S., Environmental Law, 2nd Edition 2006, Allahabad Law agency.

6|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Petitioners humbly submit this memorandum filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
this court has jurisdiction over the writ petition to try and entertain this case under Article 321
of the constitution of India.

1
Article 32 in The Constitution of India, 1955

32. 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.

7|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Statement of Facts

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Republic of Indiana is home to the second largest population of Indigenous people, at almost
104 million people and is also renowned for its diverse and expansive forested landscapes which
covers approximately 24.39% of its geographical area. Adivasis are considered the “original
inhabitants” and are traditionally and historically linked to land and forests. The Redwood Forest
situated in Indiana is a home to variety of rare and endangered plant and animal species. Not only
that The Redwood Forest serves as both a sanctuary and livelihood source for an indigenous tribal
communities known as Rewa. The Rewa community is deeply connected to the land, have
developed a way of life intricately intertwined with the forest's resources. Rewa’s intimate
relationship with their environment has given rise to their traditional forest knowledge which is
deeply linked to their day-to-day experience and survival needs, resulting in the sustainable use
and management of Redwood Forest. The government of Indiana had embarked on a series of
ambitious developmental projects in the forest region, this has opened the door for corporate
entities like AIDC Corporation to establish various ventures. While these development projects
promised for economic growth and modernization, on the other hand it has also triggered severe
consequences for the indigenous communities who had called Redwood home for generations.

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

1. The government’s initiative for the infrastructure development project, the construction of
roads and factories in Redwood, strives to transform the forest region into an economic
hub.

2. The AIDC Corporation, a multinational entity, had seized the opportunity to participate in
these development projects and they have initiated activities that included industrial
expansion, mining, and land acquisition, all with approval and support of the Government.

8|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT’S ACTIVITIES

As the juggernaut of developmental projects in Redwood has gained momentum, it has resulted in
the profound upheaval and distress to the indigenous communities who are facing a harrowing
experience of forced relocation and displacement. Rewa communities are forcibly relocated from
their ancestral lands due to the developmental project.

The traditional means of livelihood that these indigenous communities on which these
communities had depended for generation have borne the brunt of industrialization. Not only that
the development project associated with industrialization has resulted in the severe deforestation
of Redwood. The rapid industrialization of Redwood also had a profound impact on the cultural
fabric of these indigenous communities as they were uprooted from their traditional way of life
and thrust into an environment of forced assimilation and disconnection from their cultural
heritage.

Moreover, within a month of site being set up, the Residents or locals in the vicinity of Redwood
reported constant complaints of respiratory problems on account of the dust and fumes emitted by
the construction project undertaken AIDC Corporation. Additionally, there were complaints of
noise as well, especially during nighttime. These grievances underscored the immediate and
tangible environmental and health concerns raised by the developmental project in Redwood.

ROLE OF NGO JUNGLE BACHAO ENVIRO SOCIETY

In response to these dire circumstances, a PIL was filed by an NGO Jungle Bachao Enviro Society
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana against the government of Indiana and AIDC
corporation with regard to with regard to various issues which have been listed for hearing on
____________The PIL sought redressal for the forced displacement of indigenous people,
deforestation, and environmental degradation caused by the developmental projects and the PIL
has also sparked a national protests and has also drawn attention to the plight of Redwood's
indigenous people and the environmental consequences of unchecked industrialization.

9|Page
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 ISSUES

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUION OF

INDIA MAINTAINABLE?

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE

INFRINGED BY THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS?

WHETHER REPUBLIC OF INDIANA AND AIDC CORPORATION ARE LIABLE FOR

ENVIRONMENT DEGRADATION.

10 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Summary of Arguments

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUION

OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that present PIL is maintainable against Republic
of Indiana and ADIC Corporation since, it is a state under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is
further submitted that since there has been gross violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution, moreover, filing of PIL is only efficacious remedy available, hence, the PIL is
maintainable, and on account of the same relief is sought.

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE

INFRINGED BY THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, the fundamental rights of tribal people are
violated due to the development project sanctioned by the State .Moreover, Article 19 and Article
21 of the Constitution have been violated on account of arbitrary action of state, thus, resulting in
the violation of Article 14 as well. Right to Reside, Right to Livelihood and Right to Shelter have
been violated on account of deforestation has also been violated since, the Rewa Communities
were subject to forced assimilation and Isolation.

WHETHER REPUBLIC OF INDIANA AND AIDC CORPORATION ARE LIABLE

FOR ENVIRONMENT DEGRADATION.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, government of Republic of Indiana and
ADIC Corporation are liable for degrading the environment by committing acts such as that of
granting illegal approval of dereservation by the State and environment degradation caused due
to the construction activities which further violated fundamental rights of the people. Republic of
Indiana is also responsible for the climate change and therefore, is liable to pay damages. The
State shall also be liable to provide adequate and fair compensation to the people of Rewa
Communities for their resettlement.

11 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Arguments Advanced

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITON FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUION OF INDIA MAINTAINABLE?

1. It is humbly submitted that the writ petitions filed by Jungle Bachao Enviro Society is
maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indiana, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Constitution’). The counsel would base its argument on three premises; firstly, AIDC
Corporation falls within the ambit of “other authorities” as enshrined u/s 12 of the
Constitution. Secondly, there has been violation of Fundamental Rights and thirdly,
alternative remedy is not a bar.

1.1 Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Republic of Indiana and AIDC
Corporation

2. A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights 2under Article
32 of the Constitution; therefore, in the instant case, the PIL is maintainable against Union
of Rambo.
3. Further, in order to constitute a private party as state, the same must fall within the ambit
of other authorities defined under Section 12 of the Constitution and thus must satisfy the
court that it is either an instrumentality or an agency of the State. 3 In order to adjudge the
same, the functions of the corporation must be of public importance, and closely related to
governmental functions.4
4. Institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the functions
performed, government agencies.5Further under the well-established doctrine of Parens
Patriae, it is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights and the
privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations.6
5. In the instant case, it is evident that AIDC Corporation had undertaken the development
project from the Government and was engaged in construction accordingly, this acts or

2
INDIA CONST. art. 12.
3
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagat Ram and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1331.
4
Board of Control for Cricket Versus Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors, (2015) 3 SCC 251.
5
Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors vs Indian Institute Of Chemical, 2002 (5) SCC. 111.
6
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480.

12 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 performance comes within both public function and government functions. Henceforth,
they can be considered within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution,
given the nature of their function. Therefore, the present PIL is maintainable.

1.2 Fundamental Rights have been violated

6. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case there has been violation of fundamental right
of indigenous people i.e., Rewa community and the local residents living nearby Redwood
Forest.

1.2.1 Violation of the rights of the Rewa Community.

7. The arbitrary actions of the State have resulted in a violation of the Rewa Community's
fundamental rights to both shelter7 and livelihood,8 which are guaranteed by the
Constitution under Article 21. This violation raises a compelling argument about the state's
responsibility to ensure the preservation of these fundamental rights, particularly when its
action has impacted the Rewa Community and led to violation of their fundamental rights.

1.2.2 Violation of Rights of local people residing nearby Redwood.

8. Also, there has been violation of right to Healthy Environment which is guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution since the state and ADIC Corporation are responsible for
pollution and degrading the environment among other things.
9. Moreover, the infringement of these fundamental rights underscores the importance of
seeking redress for the infringement of the fundamental right to a healthy environment and
the need for accountability from all responsible parties.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that the present PIL is maintainable Republic of Indian and
ADIC Corporation.

1.3 Alternative Remedy is not a bar.

10. It is further submitted that where there is an alternative procedure available which will
provide the applicant with a satisfactory remedy, the courts approach is to direct the
applicant to that particular remedy before seeking judicial review.

7
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121.
8
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp, AIR 1986 SC 180.

13 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 11. However, in matters pertaining to Art. 32, even the Supreme Court cannot, on the ground
of existence of other adequate legal remedy, decline to entertain a petition under Art. 32.
The two reasons being; firstly, the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is in
itself a guaranteed right;9 and, secondly, the power given to the Supreme Court under Art.
32 are much wider and are not confined to issuing ‘prerogative writs’ only.10
12. It is further submitted that in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the court may
exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights11
Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is maintainable as existence of
alternative remedy is not a bar.

II. WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE TRIBAL

COMMUNITIES ARE INFRINGED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS?

13. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, the Rewa community who are the indigenous
people of Redwood Forest were subjected to forced assimilation and isolation and hence,
the fundamental rights as guaranteed under; [II.1] Article 21 of the Constitution [II.2] and
Article 19 have been violated; [II.3] Therefore, they should be rehabilitated and relocated.

2.1 Violation of Article 21

14. It is humbly submitted that Right to life and personal liberty are enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person.12
The liberal interpretation of Art. 21 in terms of its application has now been extended to
protection against arbitrary actions of the executive13 which would include all these aspects
of life which go onto make a man’s life meaningful and worth living.14

9
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.R. 819
10
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566
11
Harbansal Sahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120.
12
INDIA CONST. art. 12.
13
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 S.C.R. 621.
14
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 2 S.C.R. 516.

14 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 15. It is further submitted that the golden triangle plays an important role. In order to
substantiate violation of Article 21, it is essential that act should be subjected to the equality
test provided under Article 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19 of the
Constitution.15 Article 14 serves as a safeguard against arbitrariness because it negates
equality16and it upholds the principle of Rule of Law17. Henceforth, every action of the
State must be guided by reason for public good and not by whim, caprice, and abuse of
power.18 Article 19 provides that a restriction can be considered to be reasonable if it strikes
a balance between the fundamental right and restriction imposed thereon.19
16. In instant case, there is violation of Article 21 as [2.1.1] the Rewa Community are
indigenous people of Redwood and [2.1.2] the development undertaken by ADIC
Corporation has led to deforestation of forests [2.1.3] The government's arbitrary decision
are breaching both the test of equality and reasonableness.

2.1.1 Rewa Community are indigenous people of Redwood

17. It is submitted that The Constitution of India seeks to protect tribal interests, especially
their autonomy and rights over their land.20 The indigenous groups in India are collectively
referred to as Scheduled Tribes21 and are guaranteed a right to self-determination under
the Indian Constitution.22 Thus, the rights of Rewa Communities have also been construed
to be safeguarded under Article 244(1) and the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution. Therefore, in the present case, the indigenous people “Rewa” can be
considered to be on equal par as Scheduled Tribes.
18. It is further submitted that there indigenous communities have a special relationship with
forest as they are historically inhabited and relied upon forests for their cultural practices,
traditional knowledge, and sustainable livelihoods. However, these communities in the

15
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.
16
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
17
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
18
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514
19
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
20
Schedule 5 & 6 of the Indian Constitution.
21
INDIA CONST. art. 342.
22
Part X, Indian Constitution.

15 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 name of development have been forcefully displaces from their own home, thereby
violating fundamental rights of indigenous and tribal communities, including their right to
shelter,23 livelihood,24 and a healthy environment.25
19. Moreover, as per the doctrine of Public Trust, it is the duty of state to protect resources like
water, air, sea and forest as they holds a great importance to the general public and it it
would be unjustified to make it the subject of private ownership.26 Further, it is the duty of
state as a trustee to protect these resources for the public who are the beneficiaries.27
20. Therefore in the instant case the state has violated public trust by disregarding the special
relationship between Rewa communities and the forest, thus neglecting the doctrine's
directive to recognize and protect this relationship for the greater good.

2.1.2 There is deforestation of forests

21. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that forest serves as source of livelihood,
shelter, and sustenance for the forest dwellers or Schedule tribes28, therefore, in the realm
of social democracy forests act as potent weapon of economic empowerment.29
22. It is humbly in the instant case; the Redwood Forest is an important resource for Rewa
Community and it has immense direct and indirect value. The Rewa community depends
upon their sustenance on the Redwood Forest which serves as their only source of their
livelihood. The infrastructure development project initiated by the Government in the
Redwood Forest has led to cutting down of forest trees on large scale. Thus, relying on the
aforesaid argument, Redwood Forest serves as the ultimate source of life and livelihood of
the Rewa community and so the conduct of deforestation on these forests in the name of
infrastructure development is a clear violation of Article 21.

23
Rajesh Yadav v State of UP, (2019) 3 UPLBEC 1853.
24
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
25
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India, 1989 SCC (2) 540.
26
MC Mehta v Kamal Nath, 1997, (1997) 1 SCC 388
27
MC Mehta v Kamal Nath, 1997, (1997) 1 SCC 388
28
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 3297.
29
Waman Rao v. Union of India [1981] 2 SCR1, Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. v. UOI (1996) 10 SCC 104.

16 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 2.1.3. Violation of test of equality and reasonableness

23. It is humbly submitted that Section 2(ii) (iv) of The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 provides
that Central Government can only grants the permission of deforestation for the “non-forest
purposes”30 and clearances for such representations are granted under this section only if
Central Government considers it reasonable to cut the forest for critical development and
security related infrastructure and this is decided on the basis of the report of the
committee31.
24. It is further submitted that approval granted by the Central government is subject to certain
condition, one of such condition is that the project shall not affect the recognized rights of
the tribal communities and pre agricultural communities.32 In the instant case, the
government's clearance for infrastructural project undertaken by AIDC Corporation within
Redwood Forest clearly states that government have overlooked the cultural and livelihood
rights of the indigenous and tribal communities residing there.
25. Additionally, the Government's acts can be perceived as arbitrary and discriminatory. The
government had neglected the rights and well-being of the Rewa Community residing in
Redwood Forest and prioritizing the interests of non-indigenous individuals, the
government has acted in an arbitrary manner. Henceforth, in light of aforesaid submission,
there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, on account of abuse of power
and arbitrariness in the actions of the Government.

2.2 Violation of Article 19

26. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Rewa Community have
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (e) to settle and reside33 and to own the
property34 anywhere in the territory of Republic of Indiana, especially in the Redwood

30
Section 2, FCA, 1980.
31
Goa Foundation and Others v. State of Goa and Others, 2001 (3) BomCR 813.
32
THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, § 3, No. 2, Acts of
Parliament, 2006 (India).
33
INDIA CONST. art. 19.
34
UN General Assembly, Article 17, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III),
available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html [accessed 6 October 2023] UDHR.

17 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Forest, and this right has been violated, on account of extensive encroachments into the
forest resulting from the infrastructure development project and deforestation practice35.
27. Furthermore, it is submitted that the instant case the cutting of forest has violated the rights
of indigenous people to hold and live in the forest 36, right to protect or conserve resource,
and the right to access biodiversity and cultural diversity37 guaranteed to indigenous
people/tribals since their right to life and livelihood has been violated as envisaged under
Article 21.
28. Additionally, the infrastructure development project has led to deforestation in Redwood
forest. This cutting of trees on large scale not only jeopardizes the delicate ecological
balance but also renders the area more susceptible to natural disasters. The government has
failed to consider these critical factors and this clearly reflects a lack of reasonableness in
decision-making, as required by Article 19.

2.3 Indigenous people should be rehabilitated and relocate

29. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, the original inhabitants of Redwood Forest
i.e., the Rewa community were forcibly evicted from their own homeland due the
infrastructure development project undertaken by AIDC Corporation with the approval of
government. This forced eviction has made the people of Rewa community to shift them
to the new culture, making them more prone to exploitation. This is violative of Article 29
of the Constitution and Article 27 of ICCPR states that minority group should not be denied
the right to enjoy their own culture.38
30. Therefore, in the light of above arguments it is humbly submitted that the indigenous
people should be rehabilitated pending their relocation39 in an environment which is
conducive to their right to life with dignity as ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution.

35
Facts of case
36
THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, § 3, No. 2, Acts of
Parliament, 2006 (India).
37
THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, § 3, No. 2, Acts of
Parliament, 2006 (India).
38
INDIA CONST. art. 27; INDIA CONST. art. 29.
39
Article 12 of the ILO Convention, 107.

18 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
III. WHETHER REPUBLIC OF INDIANA AND AIDC CORPORATION
ARE LIABLE FOR ENVIRONMENT DEGRADATION.

3.1. That the Government had not taken the consent of Rewa community before issuing the
order of dereservation of Redwood Forest

31. It is humbly submitted that the Rule 9(6)(b) of the Forest Conservation Rules 2022 provides
that the Central Government after receiving the compliance report and ensuring its
completeness may accord ‘Final’ approval under section 2 of the Act and communicate
such decision to the State Government or Union territory Administration and the user
agency
32. The State Government or Union territory Administration, as the case may be, after moving
the Final approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act, and after
fulfilment and compliance of the provisions of all other Acts and rules made thereunder,
as applicable including ensuring settlement of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 200640, shall issue an order
of assignment of lease or dereservation, as the case may be.
33. However, in the instant case, the representation or the consents of the Rewa Communities
were not taken into consideration and the government has ordered for dereservation of
Redwood Forest. This act is in contravention to the Rule 9(6)(b) of the Forest Conservation
Rules 202241, henceforth, the act of government was illegal.

3.2. Pollution caused by AIDC Corporation violated Fundamentals Rights of People

34. It is humbly submitted that the construction work which was started by AIDC Corporation
has caused environment degradation and wrongful contamination in the environment
which is injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or property or

40
THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS ACT, No. 2, Acts of
Parliament, 2006 (India).
41
Forest (Conservation) Rules,2022.

19 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 environment has resulted in pollution particularly, air pollution and noise pollution thereby,
violating Article 21 of Indian Constitution .42

3.2.1. Air Pollution caused by ADIC Corporation

35. It is humbly submitted that ever since the enactment of the Constitution, we are witnessing
the continuous expansion of the Fundamental Rights. Article 21 of the Constitution is very
expansive scope and it includes almost every facet of life. It was observed in the case of
Subash Kumar43 that 'right to life guaranteed by article 21 includes the right of enjoyment
of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
36. In the instant case, the construction site in the proximity of the residential area without any
appropriate measures clearly indicates that the AIDC Corporation has disregard for the
precautionary norms and commitment to safeguarding public health. As a result of which
local nearby resident of Redwood Forest have suffered from severe respiratory problems
within a month of the site being set up, thus causing air pollution, and violating the right to
clean air guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3.2.2. Noise Pollution caused by ADIC Corporation
37. It is humbly submitted that Noise is actually a part of air pollutant44 and it can be described
as an unwanted sound if it exceeds a reasonable limit and contaminates the environment,
causes nuisance and affects the health of a person,45 thereby infringing Article 21 of the
Constitution.
38. In the instant case, construction noise caused by AIDC Corporation, particularly during
night time became a nuisance and has cause nuisance to the people residing in the vicinity
of construction site, thereby, infringing their right to sleep, guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution.

42
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, § 2 (a), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1981 (India).
43
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
44
Air Act (Prevention and Control of Pollution)1981, § 2 (a), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1981 (India).
45
In Re: Noise Pollution- Prevention of Environment and Sound Pollution v. Union of India and Anr, AIR 2005 SC
3136.

20 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 3.3. Environment Degradation by States Action

39. It is humbly submitted that environment includes water, air and land and the
interrelationship which exists among and between air, water and land and human beings,
other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”.46
40. It is further submitted that the word environment has very wide ambit and it includes both
clean atmosphere and Ecological balance. Environmental degradation could eventually
endanger life of present and future generations. Therefore, the right to life has been used
in a diversified manner in India and is also guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.47 It is the fundamental duty of the state to promote and improve
environment.48
41. In the instant case, the actions of the State by approving the cutting of trees for
Infrastructural has resulted in degradation of Redwood Forest. Moreover, it is pertinent to
note that the act of state is in contravention of Rule 9(6)(b) of the Forest Conservation
Rules 2022, on the grounds of, absence of prior approval from the indigenous and tribal
communities residing in the forest.
42. Additionally, the wide scale of cutting of trees within the forest has disrupted the delicate
ecological balance, leading to severe consequences. The long-term consequence includes
soil erosion, loss of habitat for wildlife, and disruption of watercourses are among the ill
effects of environmental degradation. Hence, relying on the above submission it could be
stated the State is liable for committing environment degradation.

46
The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
47
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187
48
INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g).

21 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 IV. DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED

4.1. Non-Compliance of Polluter Pay Principle

43. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the polluter pays principle49 imposes
absolute liability for the harm caused to the environment and to compensate the victims of
pollution and to pay the cost of restoring the environment.50 The burden of maintaining the
said balance lies on the unit which has caused the pollution51.
44. Relying on the above submission it could be state that, AIDC Corporation is liable for non-
compliance with the aforementioned principle on the grounds that no preventive measures
were taken by AIDC Corporation for curbing the pollution released from construction unit
and the noise pollution that was caused due to construction work and therefore they must
pay damages for the harm caused to the environment as well as to people since it is their
fundamental right to be compensated52. Also, the State must be directed to take corrective
measures in order to restore the environment.

4.2. Compensation for Rehabilitation and Resettlement

45. It is humbly submitted that The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 201317 (LARR Act), provides for a
special provision for the acquisition of land belonging to Scheduled Tribes. This act further
lays down provisions for the adequate rehabilitation and resettlement of Scheduled Tribe
families who are displaced by land acquisition, and to ensure the preservation of their
livelihoods and cultural identity.
46. In the instant case the Rewa Communities were forcibly evicted from their own homeland
due to the infrastructural development project undertaken in the Redwood Forest, hence,
the State shall provide adequate and fair compensation to the people of Rewa Communities
in accordance with the Section 41, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

49
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)1 SCC 613
50
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. UOI, (1996) 3 SCC 212; M C Mehta v. UOI, (1987) 1 SCC 395.
51
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India , (2000) 10 SCC 664
52
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086: (1983) 4 SCC 141, CERC v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC

22 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner
 Prayers

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The writ petitions filed by Jungle Bachao Enviro Society be held maintainable.
2. To held the Union of Indiana and ADIC Corporation liable for violation of fundamental
rights of the Rewa Communities, and order for their relocation and rehabilitation.
3. To held the Union of Indiana and ADIC Corporation liable environmental degradation.
4. To order the government to take corrective measures to restore the environment.
5. To grant temporary injunction against the construction activities and establish expert
committee to study the impact of construction activities in the Redwood Forest.

Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience.

And for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the Petitioners shall as duty bound ever pray.

23 | P a g e
Submission on behalf of Petitioner