MOOT PROPOSITION

1. The Republic of Indiva (“Indiva”) is a Parliamentary Democracy and has a quasi-federal

structure of power-sharing with its thirty-five constituent States. The Constitution and
laws of Indiva are pari materia with the Constitution and laws of the Republic of India.
2. The present Writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners namely: Prana Sharma ( 6
months old), and Kavya Grover ( 14 months old) by their fathers.
3. The present writ petition is filed because the fathers of the petitioners are concerned
about the health of their children as they feel that due to the alarming degradation of the
air quality, leading to severe air pollution in the city of Gulbaag Pradesh, where the said
petitioners reside, the petitioners may encounter various health hazards.
4. Poor, very poor or severe air quality/ air pollution affects all citizens, irrespective of
their age. However, the petitioners claim that children are much more venerable to air
pollutants as exposure thereof may affect them in various ways, including aggravation
of asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and even cognitive
impairment.
5. The petition accepts that there are number of reasons which have contributed to poor air
quality in Gulbaag Pradesh, A state In the Republic of Indiva Country. At the same, it is
emphasised that air pollution hits its all-time high during Diwali time because of
indiscriminate burning of crop by neighbouring states ( state of Alexia and State of
Dakshingarh), ash and smoke in the air whereof increases harmful particulate matters
at an alarming level.
6. Therefore, the petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme court for seeking relief
as pollution creates violation of rights to health, violation of provisions of different laws
and well-established principles.
7. The respondents, i.e. State of Dakshingarh and State of Alexia have submitted that they
are unable to impose any ban on the farmers of the states since the alternative methods
of stubble burning leaves chemicals into the soil which further reduces the productivity
of the soil. Also, crop burning is a religious act amongst the farmers.
8. After hearing both the Petitioners and the Respondents, The Court framed the following
broad issues for arguments:
1. Whether the fundamental rights of a healthy environment as guaranteed under
article 21 of the constitution has been violated or not?
2. Whether the fundamental right to carry on business, trade or occupation of the
respondent given under Article 19(1)(g) would be violated or not if a ban is imposed
on crop burning?
3. Whether complete prohibition or blanket ban on crop burning is justified or not?