Environment Law Moot Memorial

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]
IMCC-033
NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023
Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN
INDISTAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION……………………………….

……………..............PETITIONER 1
v.
UNION OF INDISTAN…………………….…….….....................….........….
…...RESPONDENT
PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTs. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN

ABOVE MENTIONED PETITION HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED AS PIL ON THE
DIRECTIVE
OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................IV-VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................IX-X
ISSUES RAISED....................................................................................................................XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................XII-XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................1-16
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETETION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN
II. WHETHER THE FOREST CONSERVATION (AMENDMENT)
ACT,2023 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
2.1Whether the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act,2023 violates Fundamental
Rights enshrined in the Part III of Constitution
1.1.1Whether or not the Act violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of Indistan2

1.1.2Whether or not the Act violates Art. 19 of the Constitution of Indistan
1.1.3Whether or not the Act violates Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indistan
2
2.2. Whether The Act Violates The Federal Structure Of The Constitution
III WHETHER THE EVICTION PROCESS VIOLATED ANY

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
3.1. The process does nt violates Article 14
3.2 The process doesn’t violates Article 19
3.3 The process violates Article 21
3
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS]
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansions
¶ Paragraph
§/SEC. Section
& And
AIR All India Reporter
HC High Court
Ors. Others
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Govt. Government
HON’BLE Honourable
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Ltd. Limited
Const. Constitution
No. Number
W.P. Writ Petiton
SLP Special Leave Petition
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
4
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES
1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Forest Conservation Act,1980
3. Sheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers Act 2006
4. Forest Conservation Ammendment Act,2023
BOOKS
1. V. N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th Ed., 2019)
2. P. M. BAKSHI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th Ed., 2015)
3. M. P. JAIN, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th Ed., 2022)
CASE LIST
1. Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors v Union of AIR (2015) 3 SCC
India and Ors,(2015)
2. Tilokchand Motichand v H.B.Munshi AIR (1969) 1 SCC
NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023 5

3. Faridabad CT scan centre vs D G Health Service AIR 1997 7 SCC 725
4. The State Of West Bengal Vs Anwar All 1952 SCR 282
Sarkarhabib
5. Laxmi Khandsari V State Of Uttar Pradesh 2 SCC 600
6. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2002 SC 1533
7. Court on its own motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) SCALE 307
8. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295
9. Waman Rao v. Union of India 2 SCC 362
10. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR1980 SC 898
11. Krishnan Kakkanath Vs Government Of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128
12. Chintaman Rao Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC118
13. Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 872
14. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal AIR 2000 SC 3313
15. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 1811
AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education
and Research Centre,
16. State of Kerala scheduled tribe case (2009) 8 SCC 46, 95
17. Keshavanandaha Bharathi V State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
18. Zorostrian Coop Housing Society Ltd Vs District AIR 2005 SC 2306
Registrar
19. K Thimmappa v chairman, Central Board of AIR 2001 SC 467
directors
20. M Nagaraj Vv Union Of India AIR 2007 SC 71
21. Union Of India Vs M V Valliapan SCC 259 AIR 1999 SC
2526

22. Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar AIR 1984 SC 1471
23. Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of 5 SCC 29
Madhya Pradesh and Ors
24. Sachidanand Pandey and Anr.v. State of West AIR (1987) 2 SCC 295
Bengal and Ors
25. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. v. Union of AIR (1972) 2 SCC 788
India
26. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat AIR 2000 Guj 160
27. LIC v. Consumer Education and Research AIR 1995 SC 1811
Centre
28. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi AIR 1994 SC 1844;
29. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union Of AIR (1996) 5 SCC 647
India,
30. Consumer Education And Research Centre And AIR 1995 SC 922
Others v. Union Of India And Others

WEB SOURCES
1. www.manupatrafast.com (MANUPATRA)
2. www.scconline.co.in (SCC ONLINE)
3. www. judis. nic.in (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)
4. www. aironline.in (ALL INDIA REPORTER)
5. www.scobserver.in (SUPREME COURT OBSERVER)

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indica under Arts. 32 of the Constitution of Indica.
Art. 32 of the Constitution is reproduced hereunder:
“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.1
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the 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.”2
1
INDIA CONST. art. 32, § 1.
2
Id. at 32 (2).

STATEMENT OF FACTS
PROLOGUE
Indistan is a Sovereign, Socialist Democratic Republic with a liberal Constitution

guaranteeing elaborate fundamental rights, including recognition of community rights.
Indistan is affluent with natural resources, including widespread forest cover distributed
along the territory.
NATURE OF CONSTITUITION
It is a is a Federal Republic that adheres to the idea of decentralization of power. It is also

considered to be a basic feature of the Indistan Constitution which cannot be amended by the
parliament
.NATURE OF POPULATION
The population of Indistan consists of rich cultural diversity, with innumerable indigenous
communities. Indistan is affluent with natural resources, including widespread forest cover
distributed along the territory. These forests are inhabited by many endangered species of
plants and animals, which the State has recognized and is under their active protection
FOREST CONSERVATION LEGISLATION(S)
In 1980, the Indistan Government enacted the Indistan Forest (Conservation) Act, with the
primary objective of safeguarding and conserving the nation's forests. Key provisions,
specifically Sections 2 and 3, imposed restrictions on the de-reservation of forest land for
non-forest purposes.
Recognizing the symbiotic relationship between forests and indigenous communities, the
Union Government passed the Indistan Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act in 2006. Under Section 3 of this Act, the Union
Government could permit the diversion of forest land for essential facilities such as schools,
hospitals, and roads. Section 6 established a democratic process involving Gram Sabhas and
committees to decide on such diversions, ensuring the recognition of forest dwellers' rights.
In February 2023 the Indistan s parliament passed the Forest Conservation (Amendment)Act
2023. The Amendment, as it stands, fundamentally alters the landscape of forest policy in

Indistan. It grants extensive powers to the Union Government, allowing for the easier
installation of structures and facilities deemed essential for national security and societal
development. Most notably, the Amendment permits the eviction of forest dwellers from
areas earmarked for development projects and allows for forest land diversion by a Central
Committee without prior approval from the authorities established under the 2006 Forest
Rights Act.
CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
In August 2023, the Indistan Young Lawyers Association, an activist group, filed a Public
Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of Indistan. The case challenges the
constitutional validity of the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, which was passed
by the Parliament in February 2023.
The Indistan Young Lawyers Association argues that this Amendment infringes upon the
basic fundamental rights guaranteed to indigenous communities under Article 21 of the
Constitution. They also contend that it undermines the federal features of Indistan's
governance structure by centralizing power.
The Union Government's response defends the Amendment, asserting its alignment with
Indistan's cultural and environmental values, its necessity for combating left extremism, and
the absence of a fundamental right to property.
The Supreme Court accepted the Public Interest Litigation and seeks to address the key
questions at hand, including the constitutionality of the Amendment and the potential
violation of fundamental rights, particularly those of the indigenous communities affected by
the eviction.

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ISSUES RAISED]
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether The Writ Petetion Is Maintainable Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of
Indistan
ISSUE 2
Whether the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act,2023 is unconstitutional?
ISSUE 3
Whether The Eviction Has Hampered The Fundamental Rights Of The Indigenous
People

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.WHETHER THE WRIT PETETION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTHAN
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the present petition filed before the
bench is not maintainable on the grounds that there is no infringement of Fundamental
Rights. The actions of the Union Govt was in accordance with the procedure established by
law. The acts fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions provided under the Constitution
of Indistan.
2.WHETHER THE FOREST CONSERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT,2023 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Article 14 (Equality): The argument asserts that the Act does not violate Article 14, as it
passes the test of reasonableness. The classification made by the Act is based on intelligible
differentia and serves the legitimate objectives of conserving forests, national security, and
development.
Article 19 (Freedom of Movement): It is argued that the Amendment Act does not infringe on
Article 19, as it allows for reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The Act's provisions
for survey and other purposes are considered valid restrictions.
Article 21 (Right to Life): The argument maintains that the Act is in line with Articles 14 and
19, emphasizing that government actions must be guided by reasons and public interest. The
Act's objectives, including national security and development, are seen as compatible with
the need to protect the environment and the rights of indigenous people.
Regarding Federal Structure:

The argument counters the claim that the Act violates the federal structure of the Indian
Constitution. It highlights Article 246(1), which grants exclusive power to the parliament to
make laws on matters in the Union List. The establishment of military bases is argued to fall
under this category, and the Act doesn't require state government approval.
It is noted that while forest management is in the concurrent list, the language of Article 246
supports the supremacy of Union law. States can make supplementary laws, but the Act's
provisions do not infringe upon the state's power significantly. Legal precedents are cited to
support the argument that the Act's provisions do not fundamentally undermine federalism or
deprive states of their effective authority to make laws.
3. WHETHER THE EVICTION HAS HAMPERED THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
In summary, the argument presented before the court contends that the eviction of indigenous
people under the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act of 2023 has not violated their
fundamental rights, specifically under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The
key points made in this argument are as follows:
Regarding Violation of Fundamental Rights:
Article 14 (Equality): The argument asserts that the eviction is not in violation of Article 14,
as it is based on a rational reason that serves the larger public interest. The presence of Naxal
activities in the area poses a threat to national security, justifying the establishment of a
military base, and this differentiation is considered reasonable.
Article 19 (Freedom of Movement): It is argued that the eviction does not infringe upon
Article 19(1)(e), as reasonable restrictions are permissible under Article 19(5) in the interest

of the general public. The government's actions are deemed to be in line with the principles of
social justice and economic justice, balancing individual rights with the greater good.
Article 21 (Right to Life): The argument maintains that the eviction does not violate Article
21, as it adheres to due process of law and is justified based on national security concerns.
Article 21 encompasses the right to a quality of life and obligates the government to protect
the rights of citizens in the larger public interest.
Regarding Right to Livelihood: The argument emphasizes that the eviction does not violate
the right to livelihood of the indigenous people. While their lives depend on the forest, the
government's duty to safeguard national security and improve living conditions for the
general populace justifies the eviction in the interest of the larger public.
In conclusion, the argument asserts that the eviction under the Forest Conservation
(Amendment) Act of 2023 is legally justifiable, as it balances the rights of indigenous people
with the broader concerns of national security and public interest, and thus does not violate
their fundamental rights under the Indian Constituti

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] WHETHER THE WRIT PETETION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTHAN.
¶1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed
before the bench is not maintainable. The maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indistan depends upon the facts of the case. 3The question as to when the Sc
should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental right alleged to have
been infringed and the remedy claimed. 4In the present case the petition is not maintainable on
the grounds that there is no violation of Fundamental Rights. The actions of the Union Govt
falls within the reasonable restrictions(2.1&).
2.WHETHER THE FOREST CONSERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT,2023 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
2.1. Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act,2023 doesn’t violate Fundmental Rights
enshrined in the Part III of Constitution.
The Forest Amendment Act Of 2023 Is Constitutional

¶2. It is humbly submitted before the court that the Forest Amendment Act 2023 is wholly
constitutional. The impugned act does not violate the provisions of fundamental rights of the
indigenous people, namely articles 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution, furthermore, it does not
violate the basic structure and federalism.
2.1.1Whether the impugned act is violative of fundamental rights of the constitution
The impugned act does not violate Article 14
¶3. It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the Forest Amendment Act 2023, is
not violating Article 14 which states that the person is entitled to equality before the law and
3
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors v Union of India and Ors,(2015) 3 SCC 1;Tilokchand Motichand v
H.B.Munshi(1969) 1 SCC 110
4
Tilokchand Motichand V H.B.munshi.(1969) 1 SCC 110;Rabindranath Bose v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 84.
17 | P a g e
equal protection of the law5. To satisfy Article 14 of the constitution, the law in question must
meet the Twin Test of Reasonableness.
The Amendments Passes The Twin Test Of Reasonableness
¶4. Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the following two tests:
1. It should not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible

differentia, some real and substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or
things grouped in the class from others left out of it 6
2. The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must have rational or reasonable
nexus with the object to be achieved by the statute in question7
The Impugned Act Is Based On Intelligible Differentia
¶5. Article 14 in its ambit and sweep involves two factors, viz, it permits reasonable
classification which is founded on the intelligible differentia and accommodates practices
needed for the society differential must have a reasonable rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved. It is the ‘fon juris’ of our constitution, the fountainhead of justice The
act’s object is to conserve forests at the same time provide room for development and
national security for the country. The act enables the central government easier installation of
structures and facilities for national security and the overall development of society. It is
humbly submitted before the court that the law in question is based on rational classification,
it is not discriminatory8. The classification made under the law on the land under the
provision and not under the provision of the act is for the national security of the country and
also for defence.
2.1.2The impugned act does not violate Article 19
¶6. It is humbly submitted before the court that the Amendment Act does not violate Article
19 of the constitution. Article 19(1)(e) grants individuals the right to live and establish
themselves anywhere within the territory of Indistan, subject to reasonable restrictions
permissible under Article 19(5) in the interest of the public. Therefore, the rights of the
5
Faridabad CT scan centre vs D G Health Service, (1997) 7 SCC 725
6
The State Of West Bengal Vs Anwar All Sarkarhabib, 1952 SCR 282
7
Laxmi Khandsari V State Of Uttar Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC 600
8
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34 : AIR 2002 SC 1533.
AIR SCW 6194 : (2012) 9 SCALE 310.
18 | P a g e
indigenous people to reside and settle in the forest area is not an absolute right and can be
restricted under Article 19(5) if it is in the public interest9.
¶7. The court has further explained the concept of reasonable restriction as envisaged in
article 19 in the case, Krishnan Kakkanath vs. Government Of Kerala which states that the
reasonable restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of
the interest of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interest of the persons
upon whom the restriction are imposed or upon who abstract consideration 10. In the present
case scenario, considering the interest of public interest the land under the conditions subject
to survey, such as reconnaissance, prospecting, investigation, or exploration including
seismic survey, shall not be treated as non-forest purposes for the national security of the
country. The phrase reasonable restriction connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in
enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is
required in the interest of the public 11
2.1.3The impugned act does not violate Article 21
¶8. It is humbly submitted before the court that the Amendment has not violated Article 21 of
the Constitution. The equality test of Article 14 and the reasonableness test of Article 19
should be used to the action. Article 14 provides fairness and protects against arbitrary action.
It provides that every action of the government must be informed by reasons and guided by
public interest12. In the present case scenario, the act does not violate article 14 and, 19 and it
eventually leads to the conclusion that the amendment is not arbitrary and hence it passes the
test of reasonableness. It provides that every action of the government must be informed by
reasons and guided by public interest13. The present amendment gives power to the union
government for national security and for further development in the country which is the duty
of the government and by hand in hand conserving the forest. The government must therefore
take into account both the need to protect the environment while allowing eviction and the
significance of national security for the safety of the public peace and security, despite the
fact that the life of the indigenous people is dependent on the forest.
9
Court on its own motion v. Union of India, 2012 (12) SCALE 307; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC
1295, Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR1980 SC 898.
10
Krishnan Kakkanath Vs Government Of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128, at 135: (1997) 9 SCC 495
11
Chintaman Rao Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC118
12
Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000 SC
3313 .
13
M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education and Research
Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811
19 | P a g e
¶9. In the State Of Kerala Schedule Tribe Case, the supreme court considered the issue as to
whether a law that provided the tribals should be rehabilitated in their own habitat when a
prior alienation by the tribals was violating article 21 of the constitution at the instance of
alienated, the court declared that there was no transgression of article 21 14. Applying this in
the present case scenario, it is understood that there will no violation of Article 21 and the
argument that rehabilitating them to a different habitat is violative of the same.
.2.2 The Act Violates The Federal Structure Of The Constituion
¶10. The obvious tendency of the Indistan s Const. is towards centralisation within federal
pattern and framework’s scheme of the Const. is to secure a constitutionally strong Centre
having adequate powers both in extend and in nature so that it can maintain and protect the
unity and integrity of the country15.In the current case before the court there is no
disturbance of federalism as the Central govt acts within its powers.
¶11. Article 246(1)16 confers the parliament an exclusive power to make laws with respect to
any of the matters in the Union List. Establishing of Military base clearly falls under List I (a)
(ii) of the Seventh Shedule of the Const.of Indistan.The entry does not say that the centre can
deploy its forces in a state only at the request of the state governments .
¶12. The Amendment’s provision allowing the Central Committee appointed by the union
government to divert the forest land without prior approval of the Authorities(Gram Sabha)
established by FRA act doesn’t go against the spirit of federalism as the Union govt derives
such powers from the entry, and that the exemption provided under Section 2(3) 17 of the
amendment act is valid.
¶13. Though Forest is a subject in the concurrent list the phraseology of various clauses of
Art.246 is such as to secure the principle of Union Supremacy. The legislative power
conferred on the Centre under Art.246(1) Union List gets an upper hand. Further it doesn’t
curatil the state’s power to make supplementary laws on that matter to provide special
circumstances of the state.
¶14. Thus by not getting prior approval of authorities established by the FRA the centre is not
infringing upon State’s power federal power since the matter falls under the concurrent list..
¶15. This clearly establishes the fact that there has been no disturbance to federalism which
14
State of Kerala scheduled tribe case (2009) 8 SCC 46, 95
15
Mp Jain, Constitution of India
16
INDIA CONST. art 246
17
Forest Conservation Amendment Act No.10, Acts of Parliament, 2007,(India)
20 | P a g e
forms the basic structure of Indistans constitution as laid down by Keshavanandha Bharathi
Judgement18.In another case State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) 19which was a
suit filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the constitutional validity of the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The Act empowered the Central
Government to acquire land and rights in or over land that were vested in the State for coal
mining purposes. The State argued that the Act violated the federal principle and encroached
upon the State’s legislative and executive powers. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit and
upheld the Act as a valid exercise of the Parliament’s power under Entry 54 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule1
20
¶16. In State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla (1959), the Supreme Court struck down the
Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1955, which imposed a tax on inter-state sales of
goods. The Court held that the Act was a colourable legislation, as it invaded the exclusive
domain of the Centre to legislate on inter-state trade and commerce under Entry 42 of the
Union List. The Court observed that the state could not rely on Entry 54 of the Concurrent
List, which allowed it to tax sales within the state, to justify its encroachment on the Centre’s
power.
¶17. In Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra 21, the Supreme Court clarified
the principles regarding the alteration of State legislative power within the context of
federalism. The Court held that making subtle changes to state legislative power doesn't
necessarily violate federalism. A violation only occurs when an amendment fundamentally
undermines federalism's essence or deprives the States of their effective authority to make
laws and frame executive policies, which are equivalent to legislative power.
III. WHETHER THE EVICTION HAS HAMPERED THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
3.1Whether the eviction has violated Article 14
¶18. It is humbly submitted before the court that the eviction has not violated Article 14 of
the constitution. Article 14 read in the light of the preamble to the constitution reflects the
18
Keshavanandha Bharathi v. State of Kerala(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
19
West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) (1964) 1 SCR 371; AIR 1963 SC 1241
20
State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla 1959 AIR 544, 1959 SCR
21
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra SLPC) 15737/2019
21 | P a g e
thinking of our constitution makers and prevents any discrimination based on various
parameters in the matter of equal treatment22.
¶19. As mentioned in the facts the the Amendment clearly, in its objective, provides that it is
enacted to enable easier installation of structures and facilities for national security and overall
development of the society23, The rationale behind such a provision is to protect the peace of the
nation by providing national security and to provide with facilities for the development of the
nation. As to meet the twin test of reasonableness, the action of the government or law in question
should not be arbitrary and should have a reasonable reason behind it, Considering and
comparing the eviction of the indigenous people with the test it is clearly understood that there is
a rational reason behind it, which is actually the concern of a larger public.
¶20. The Naxal activities founded in the area are a threat to the nation and can cause disruption to
public peace, which is the reason for establishing a military base. The Supreme Court has stated in
the case, K Thimmappa v Chairman, Central Board of Directors when a law is challenged to be
discriminatory essentially on the ground that it denies equal treatment or protection, the question for
the determination by the Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality but whether there is some
difference which bears just and reasonable relation to the legislation and the mere differentiation does
not amount to discrimination 24, apparently, the eviction was to reduce area's left extremism, which is
justified and reasonable as it challenges the national security.
¶21. It is not necessary for the classification to be valid, its basis must always appear on the face of
law25. The concept of equality allows differential treatment but it prevents distinctions that are not
properly justified, hence the justification needs each case to be decided on a case-to-case basis 26. The
differentiation is not always discriminatory, if there is a rational nexus on the basis of which
differentiation has been made with the object sought to be achieved by the particular amendment, then
such differentiation is not discriminatory 27. The eviction was not on a discriminatory basis as the
purpose of the amendment itself has the aim which consider easier installation of structures and
facilities for national security.28
22
Zorostrian Coop Housing Society Ltd Vs District Registrar , AIR 2005 SC 2306
23
Moot preposition
24
K Thimmappa v chairman, Central Board of directors, AIR 2001 SC 467
25
Mp Jain, constitution of india
26
M Nagaraj Vv Union Of India, AIR 2007 SC 71
27
Union Of India Vs M V Valliapan 1996 6 SCC 259 AIR 1999 SC 2526
28
Moot prop
22 | P a g e
¶22. It is humbly submitted before the court that the impugned act has not violated the
provisions of Article 19(1)(e), the provision deals with the right to reside 29. The constitutional
provisions guarantee the Indian citizens the right to go or to reside wherever they like within
the Indian territory and these rights underline the concept that India is one unit as far as the
citizen is concerned, however, these rights come with some reasonable restrictions and these
rights are not absolute rights and can be restricted under Article 19(5).
¶23. Social justice is the acknowledgment of the greater benefit for a greater number of
people without denying anyone's ability to acquire legal rights that are regarded as their
fundamental rights30. The Government while exercising its power and by subscribing to the concept
of 'social justice' and 'economic justice' enshrined in the preamble 31 might detract from some
technical rule in favor of a party 32 in order to do greater good to a larger number so as to act in
consonance with the principles of equality and public intrest.33
¶24. Article 19(5) provides dual grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on this freedom,
namely, the interests of the general public and the protection of the interests of any scheduled
tribe34. It is understood that in the present case, the eviction meets the justification given for
the reasonable restriction. The reason behind the eviction was clearly for the general public
interest. Further, the principle of "common good"35depends on the economic and political
philosophy of the government36. The government has acted on the basis of their duty to
provide national security to the general public, as the area was reported increasing Naxal
activities in the area, which is a threat to the larger national security of the country 37
¶25. The union government has acted for the common good and national security of the
government which is justified and meets the elements for the reasonable restriction under
article 19(5), there for The action of the government to evict the indigenous people from the
land cannot be considered as the violation of article 19(e), since the government has rather
ensured the social justice and has furnished its legal duty, by recognizing the fundamental rights
of all the citizens of Indiana to have a quality of life, without interfering with the legal rights of
29
Article 19, Indian constitution
30
Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 1471 , S.R Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCR
644.
31
Article 39 (1) of Constitution
32
Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar, AIR 1984 SC 1471.
33
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 29, Sachidanand
Pandey and Anr.v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 295
34
Article 19 (5), Indian constitution
35
19Article 39(b), Constitiution
36
Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788
37
Moot preposition
23 | P a g e
indigenous people, thus the government took action in the public interest and for the benefit of all
Indian residents. Therefore, Article 19 of the Constitution has not been violated.
¶26. It is humbly submitted before the court that the impugned act has not violated the Article
21 of the constitution. Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to a procedure established by law 38, to establish the violation of
Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and the test of
reasonableness under the Article 19.
¶27. The impugned is able to meet the elements of due process of law, the word ‘due’ is
interpreted to mean just, proper, and reasonable, and the court may declare the law invalid if
it does not accord with the notion of what is just and fair in the circumstances. Considering
the present case, the eviction of the indigenous people was justified and fair in the
circumstances as it was the case of national security and the duty of the government to
consider the greater public interest. It provides that every action of the government must be
informed by reasons and guided by public interest39
The Eviction Does Not Violate Right To Livelihood
¶28. It is hereby submitted before the court that the act does not violate the right to livelihood
of the indigenous people. In the present case , it was the duty of government safeguard the
people with security as the Naxal activities in the evicted area were a threat to the national
40
security of the country. Since, Article 21 envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a
person, which not merely guarantees the right to continuance of a person’s existence but a quality
of life41 and therefore, the State is cast upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in
discharge of its constitutional obligation in the larger public interest 42 guaranteed as a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution43
¶29. Despite the fact that the lives of the indigenous people depend on the forest, the
government must take into account more than just the need to protect the environment while
38
Artcle 21, Indian constitution
39
M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education and Research
Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
40
Moot prop
41
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi, Air 1994 SC 1844; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union Of
India, (1996) 5 SCC 647; Principle 2 of Stockhom Conference,1973 , Principle 1 of Rio Declarartion,1992
42
Consumer Education And Research Centre And Others v. Union Of India And Others , Air 1995 SC 922
43
Article 21
24 | P a g e
permitting deforestation. It must also take into account national security for improving the
living conditions of the populace and peace of the population, thus the eviction is not
violative of right to livelihood and hence article 21 of the constitution.
25 | P a g e
PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, authorities cited,
submissions made hereto above and those to be urged at the time of the hearing, it is humbly
prayed that this hon’ble court may be pleased:
1. TO DECLARE THAT FOREST CONSERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023, IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLES 14, 19, AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN.
2. TO UPHOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ACT, WHICH ENABLES EASIER
INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, IS BASED ON REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION AND SERVES THE LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST.
3. TO UPHOLD THAT THE EVICTION PROCESS WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that this hon’ble court may deem fit and
appropriate in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS(033)
26 | P a g e

Environment Law Moot Memorial

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

Environment Law Moot Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN

INDISTAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION……………………………….

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTs. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETETION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN

II. WHETHER THE FOREST CONSERVATION (AMENDMENT)

2.1Whether the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act,2023 violates Fundamental

Rights enshrined in the Part III of Constitution

1.1.1Whether or not the Act violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of Indistan2

III WHETHER THE EVICTION PROCESS VIOLATED ANY

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

W.P. Writ Petiton

SLP Special Leave Petition

UOI Union of India

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Forest Conservation Act,1980

3. Sheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers Act 2006

4. Forest Conservation Ammendment Act,2023

1. V. N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th Ed., 2019)

2. P. M. BAKSHI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th Ed., 2015)

3. M. P. JAIN, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th Ed., 2022)

1. Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh and Ors v Union of AIR (2015) 3 SCC

India and Ors,(2015)

2. Tilokchand Motichand v H.B.Munshi AIR (1969) 1 SCC

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023 5

3. Faridabad CT scan centre vs D G Health Service AIR 1997 7 SCC 725

4. The State Of West Bengal Vs Anwar All 1952 SCR 282

5. Laxmi Khandsari V State Of Uttar Pradesh 2 SCC 600

6. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2002 SC 1533

8. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295

9. Waman Rao v. Union of India 2 SCC 362

10. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR1980 SC 898

11. Krishnan Kakkanath Vs Government Of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128

12. Chintaman Rao Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC118

13. Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 872

14. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal AIR 2000 SC 3313

15. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 1811

AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education

and Research Centre,

16. State of Kerala scheduled tribe case (2009) 8 SCC 46, 95

17. Keshavanandaha Bharathi V State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461

19. K Thimmappa v chairman, Central Board of AIR 2001 SC 467

20. M Nagaraj Vv Union Of India AIR 2007 SC 71

21. Union Of India Vs M V Valliapan SCC 259 AIR 1999 SC

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023 8

22. Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar AIR 1984 SC 1471

23. Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of 5 SCC 29

Madhya Pradesh and Ors

Bengal and Ors

27. LIC v. Consumer Education and Research AIR 1995 SC 1811

28. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory Of Delhi AIR 1994 SC 1844;

Others v. Union Of India And Others

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023 8

2. www.scconline.co.in (SCC ONLINE)

3. www. judis. nic.in (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

4. www. aironline.in (ALL INDIA REPORTER)

5. www.scobserver.in (SUPREME COURT OBSERVER)

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETETION,2023 9

Court of Indica under Arts. 32 of the Constitution of Indica.

Art. 32 of the Constitution is reproduced hereunder: