Final Solution R

TEAM CODE- TC-05
B. M. S MEMORIAL 3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ / 2017
(FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950)
IN THE MATTER OF
SWADESHI SURAKSHA SAMITI & ORS. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF ABBREVIATION .............................................................................................................III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................................V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................X
STATEMENT OF FACT ............................................................................................................... XI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................................... XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... XIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................. 1
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FALLING UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE ....................... 1

1.1There Has Been No Violation Of Fundamental Right ................................................................. 1
1.2 Writ Petition Has Been Filed Prematurely. ............................................................................... 1
1.3 The Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies ............................................................................... 3
2. WHETHER MINING IS LEGAL IN RESERVED FOREST OF SWADESHI ............................................ 4
2.1 Atomic Energy Act 1962 ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Forest Conservation Act 1980 ............................................................................................. 5
2.3 Environment Protection Act 1986 ...................................................................................... 6
2.4 Mines and Minerals ............................................................................................................ 6
2.5 States rights over its Mines and Minerals are not restricted ............................................ 7
3. WHETHER THE STATE ACTION IS ARBITRARY.............................................................................. 8
3.1 State action is not in violation of article 14 ........................................................................ 8
3.2 State action is not in violation of article 19 ........................................................................ 8
4. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE INFRINGED ................... 11
4.1 Right to Shelter ....................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 The Mining Project Does Not Infringe Right to Environment ................................................. 12
4.3 Right to Health ........................................................................................................................ 16
4.4 Right to Livelihood .................................................................................................................. 16
4.5 Religious and Cultural Rights .................................................................................................. 17
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................... 20
ii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
EAC Expert Appraisal Committee
EC Environmental Clearance
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Factsheet Statement of Facts, B.M.S Memorial 3rd
National Moot Court Competition Problem
FC Forest Clearance
FCA Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
FRA Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006
GOI Government of India
Honble Honourable
ICCPR International Convention Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
Mining Project Project by RUC to extract uranium from the
ores of Swadeshi
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India
MoTA Ministry of Tribal Affairs
NGT National Green Tribunal
NRRP National Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Policy, 2007
PESA The Provisions of The Panchayats (Extension
To The Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
iii
PIL Public Interest Litigation

RUC Rustam Uranium Corporation Private
Limited
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
Sq. km. Square Kilometre
SSS Swadeshi Suraksha Samiti
ST Schedule Tribes
TFD Traditional Forest Dwellers
U.O.I Union of India
UCIL Uranium Corporation of India Limited
UDHR Universal Deceleration of Human Rights
V. Versus
iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
1. A. Hamsaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu ......................................................................... 11
2. Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Others v. State
of Gujarat & Others ..................................................................................................... 16
3. Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat

...................................................................................................................................... 17
4. Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India .......................................... 4, 7
5. Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 15391
6. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal ........................................................... 11
7. Atomic Energy Act 1962 ............................................................................................... 4
8. Avishek Goenka v. Union of India .............................................................................. 13
9. B.S. Sandhu v. Govt. of India ........................................................................................ 5
10. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab .................................................................................... 9
11. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India................................................... 1
12. BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India .............................................................. 14
13. Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, ....................................................... 13
14. Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Coop. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
...................................................................................................................................... 13
15. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ............................................................... 15, 16
16. Chewang Pintso Bhutia v. State of Sikkim .................................................................. 16
17. Church Of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare ............................ 16
18. Commissioner H.R.E v. L.T. Swamiar ........................................................................ 16
v
19. Commissioner Of Police v. Acharya J. Avadhuta and Anr ......................................... 16
20. Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and Others 13
21. Court On Its Own Motion V. Union Of India ................................................................ 9
22. Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v.Bombay Suburban Electricity

Supply Company, ......................................................................................................... 14
23. Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ............................................................................ 3
24. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress ............................................. 8
25. Dr. Shivarao Shantaram Wagle v. Union Of India, ..................................................... 15
26. Electronics Corporation of India Limited Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ...... 5
27. Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh .............................................................. 14
28. Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India .................................................................... 8
29. G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India ......................................................................... 13, 14
30. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors ............................. 1
31. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi ................................................................................. 12
32. Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India .......................................... 1
33. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and Ors .......................... 14
34. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P ......................................................................................... 9
35. Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala ............................................................................ 9
36. LIC v. Consumer Education and Research .................................................................... 8
37. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, ........................................................... 8
38. M.K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Ltd ....................................................................... 15
39. Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn ...................................... 8
vi
40. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ............................................................................... 10
41. Mathew Lukose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board, .......................................... 15
42. Mohammed Fasi v. Superintendent Of Police ............................................................. 16
43. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India .......................................................................................... 1
44. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of M.P .................................................................. 11
45. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India......................................................... 14, 17
46. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India .............................................................. 11
47. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal........................................................................... 8, 14
48. Obbayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,

Bangalore ....................................................................................................................... 9
49. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation ........................................................... 13
50. Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, ........................... 7
51. People United for better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal .......................... 14
52. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi ...................................................................... 1, 2
53. Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom ....................................................................... 12
54. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner................................................................... 3
55. Rambhau Patil v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation........................ 14
56. Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ......................................... 15
57. Romesh Thapar v Union of India,.................................................................................. 1
58. Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal ............................................................ 14
59. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh ...................................................................... 14, 17
60. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State Of Bombay ................................................... 16
vii
61. State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties ............................................... 9, 11
62. State of Orissa v. Radheyshyam Meher ......................................................................... 9
63. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinnappa) v. Union of India .......... 14
64. T.N. GodavarmanTirumulpad v. Union of India ........................................................... 5
65. Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh ................................. 13
66. University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao ............................................................... 13
67. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore ................................................................. 16
68. Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors ................................ 14
69. Waman Rao v. Union of India ....................................................................................... 9
Statutes
1. Constitution Of India. .................................................................................................... 3
2. Forest Conservation Act 1980 ....................................................................................... 5
3. Panchayats (Extension To Scheduled Areas) Act,1996 ................................................. 4
4. Saving Of Act 33 Of 1962 ............................................................................................. 6
5. Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest

Rights) Act 4(5) (2006) ............................................................................................... 7
6. Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules (2004 .................................................... 12
7. Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal Of Radioactive Wastes) Rules (1987); ...................... 12
8. Atomic Energy Act 1962 ............................................................................................... 5
9. Forest Conservation Act 1980 ....................................................................................... 5
10. National Green Tribunal Act ......................................................................................... 2
11. Panchayats (Extension To Scheduled Areas) Act (1996) ............................................. 4
viii
12. Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest
Rights) Act 4(5) (2006). .............................................................................................. 7
13. The Eia Notification 2006 .............................................................................................. 2
14. The Mines And Minerals Act 1957 ............................................................................... 6
Treatises
1. ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries

(ILO No. 169) .............................................................................................................. 11
Books
1. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India 396 (13th Ed. 2001).
2. Sairam Bhat. Natural Resources Conservation Law 63 (2010).
3. Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law And Policy In India 157-158
(2nd Ed. 2002)
ix
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of Indiana, 1950. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of
this Honble Court.
Art. 32 in The Constitution Of Indiana, 1950 talks about the 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.
x
STATEMENT OF FACT
1. Indiana is a developing country, where around 35% of population is involved in

agriculture activities. Indiana is reach in valuable minerals especially uranium. This
uranium was found in the place of Namro which is declared as scheduled area under
Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and located in one of the state of
Indiana. Namro falls under the category reserved forest area named swadeshi.
2. Indiana, a developing country, has a predominantly industrial economy. In January 2016
Indiana faced an electricity-crisis because of inadequate resources to produce electricity
and this has led to widespread chaos and panic. This has resulted in the temporary closure
of large number of small as well as medium establishments .This has led to retrenchment
and layoff of workers .On 26th may 2016 The All Indiana Labour Forum as well as The
All Indiana Industry Association approached the Supreme Court of Indiana to quash the
order of lay-offs and also to direct the Government of Indiana to provide for a remedy to
the power crisis, that has affected their Right to Livelihood, guaranteed under the
Constitution of INDIANA. Court passed an order to submit a report into the root cause of
power crisis and to state the solution.
3. In the pursuance of the direction given by honble court on 11th July 2016 the department
of Atomic Energy [DoAE] submitted a report. Based on this report GOI leased out 57 sq.
km of swadeshi land which also include the schedule area for a period of fifty years, to
UCIL. The GOI also provided for all the necessary documentation and proof of the
licenses that have been granted to achieve such ends. Meanwhile, indigenous
communities rose up in arms against the mining activity in demarcated areas saying that it
would hinder their livelihood and peaceful existence in the forest of swadeshi.
SWADESHI SURAKSHA SAMITI a Non-Governmental Organisation, protested that
Uranium mill tailings retain about 85% of the original radioactivity of the ore, and it is
very difficult to minimise releases of radioactive decay products such as Radium and
Radon as well as heavy metals, given the developing economy of India.
4. On 16th December 2016 The UCIL sublease sub-leased the process of extraction of
minerals to Rustam Uranium Corporation Private Limited ("RUC") for 30 years by way
of a tender Notification, commencing from the date of grant of Environmental
Clearance, by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, for the process of extraction.
The Gram Panchayats, living in and around the vicinity of SWADESHI, were consulted
in a Public Hearing in respect of the Environmental Clearance for carrying out mining
xi
operations but they didnt raise any objections. The Public Hearing of the tribal
community was cancelled on the ground that the said lease-area was within the Reserved
Forest and the property rights of the same, vested with the Government.
5. On 1st March and 5th April 2017, a conditional Environmental Clearance and forest
clearance was granted for a period of 30 years. This EC provided certain safeguards such
as allowance for the Indigenous communities to access the forest for their livelihood
rights as per customary practices, compensation to land losers as per National
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 ["NRRP"], compensatory afforestation,
development of effective emergency response etc. Subsequently, RUC was also granted
the FC.
6. The writ petition is filled under article 32 of constitution by SSS and tribal communities
alleging that the license was not granted accordance with law, pollution level will
increase by this mining activity and also alleged that the green signal was given without
taking into consideration their right to life and livelihood and that many places that they
hold sacred would be desecrated respectively.
xii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
WHETHER THE WRIT FILLED BY SWADESHI SURAKSHA SAMITI AND ORS
IN HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA IS MAINTAINABLE
II
WHETHER THE MINING ACTIVITY IS LEGAL IN RESERVED FOREST OF

SWADESHI.
III
WHETHER THE STATE ACTION IS ARBITRARY
IV
WHETHER THE MINING PROJECT INFRINGES THE RIGHTS OF TRIBAL

COMMUNITIES
xiii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. The side respondent humbly submits that this writ petition cannot be termed as
maintainable as there has been no infringement of fundamental rights required by
article 32 for maintainability of petition.
2. It is also being contended that the writ petition has been filed prematurely in front of
Supreme Court and the petitioner could have resorted to the means of article 226 or
could have filed a case in front of NGT as this is a case related to environmental
issues as there are experts seated to adjudge the situation perfectly.
3. It has been put forth by the government that it has the right to acquire any piece of
land for purpose of installing any necessary building or infrastructure for the proper
development of country. This has been mentioned under section 10 of the Atomic
energy act.
4. It has been further proved that the mining activities are in consonance with the forest
conservation act and environment protection act.
5. The various state actions are not arbitrary in nature. The large-scale electricity crisis
has disabled the country from its daily activities. Indiana now depends upon this
uranium project to bridge the gap of development.
6. The rights of tribal communities under articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the
constitution has not been violated as EC provides for a rule in which RUC has to
rights to communities to use firewood, etc from the forest areas. Furthermore, they are
not being displaced from the swadeshi forest but only from mining area as even
mining is necessary for the given scenario.
7. The respondent further submits that there has been no infringement of fundamental
rights of the tribal communities, hence, there is no ground for entertaining this
petition and should be immediately be discarded.
xiv
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FALLING UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS

MAINTAINABLE
1. A writ petition can be filed under article 32 of the constitution is for the enforcement
of fundamental rights1 as guaranteed in part 3 of the constitution.2 The respondents
0submits that, there has been no violation of fundamental right [1.1], this writ petition
has been filed prematurely [1.2], there is rule of exhaustion of local remedy [1.3].
1.1There Has Been No Violation Of Fundamental Right.
2. The respondent humbly submits, this court has held that only if there is a violation of
fundamental right it can step up under the jurisdiction of article 32.3 Neither any kind
of forceful assimilation has been inflicted upon the tribal communities nor
environment has been harmed. The action taken by the state was in furtherance of
principles of economic and social justice and does not lead to the violation of any
fundamental right of the tribal communities. Hence, the petition must fail.
1.2 Writ Petition Has Been Filed Prematurely.

3. The respondent submits that this writ petition has been filed prematurely. There are
two alternative effective remedies are available to the petitioner which includes right
of petitioner to approach high court under article 226 [1.2.1], to approach National
Green Tribunal [1.2.2].
1.2.1Petitioner may approach high court under article 226
4. The power of high court under article 226 is wider than the power of this court under
article 32 of this constitution.4 There are cases concerning the safety of development
project, this honble court has transferred to high court.5 Further, the relief prayed for
can be granted by high court. The respondent submits high courts would be in a better
position to a certain local conditions and facts and therefore for proper monitoring
1
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
2
Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539 10, Guruvayur
Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546 50, BALCO Employees Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
3
Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124.
4
PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1988 SCR (1) 732.
5
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362.
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

they must be preferred.6 The instant case similar to ICELO7 case and require
knowledge and ability to assess local conditions. Therefore, remedy available under
article 226 is not just an alternative but also a preferable remedy.
1.2.2 Petitioner may approach National Green Tribunal
5. The petitioner alternatively also has the option of approaching national green tribunal.
In the present case the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of environmental
clearance passed by MoEF under FCA and EIA. Under NGT act, any person
aggrieved by an order made under FCA8 or EPA9 may challenge the same under the
appellate jurisdiction of NGT.10
6. It is submitted that the NGT has been expressly established to deal with questions
related to enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief
and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.11 Therefore, any submission that the NGT cannot
enforce rights or protect them adequately is erroneous.
7. NGT is specially equipped to evaluate scientific claims apart from civil claims due to
the presence of scientific experts on the bench. It is submitted that due to the presence
of scientific experts in NGT, NGT is better equipped than SC to evaluate concerns
about health and consequences of mining project.
8. In the present case both the parties seek speedy resolution of the dispute as best
interest of both the parties lies in it. The petitioner would like to seek certainty about
their homes livelihood and environment; the respondent would like to seek certainty
about their investment at the earliest. The act provides that NGT shall endeavour to
adjudicate upon the dispute within six months from the date filing application or
appeal.12
9. Moreover, if petition is admitted by this honble court it will defeat the object of NGT
act to create a specialised tribunal for environmental cases. This case will be used as a
precedent to bypass the jurisdiction of NGT to directly approach to SC. Therefore, for
6
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996)5 SCC 261.
7
Ibid.
8
National Green Tribunal Act Sec. 16(e) (2010).
9
National Green Tribunal Act sec. 16(h) (2010). The EIA Notification 2006 has been issued under the EPA.
Therefore, it forms a part of the EPA.
10
National Green Tribunal Act sec. 16.
11
Ibid.
12
National Green Tribunal Act sec. 18(3).

speedy disposal of this case and to fulfil the objective of NGT act, NGT must be
preferred over Supreme Court.
1.3 The Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies
10. The respondent submits that the petitioner is required to exhaust all local remedies to
reduce the increasing pendency of the cases13 and to inspire faith in hierarchy of
institution as a whole. The petitioner may contend that the rule of exhaustion of local
remedies is unconstitutional and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under
article 32(1). The respondent humbly submits that article 32(1) confers a right to
move to Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings.14
11. Appropriate proceedings are interpreted to mean procedure related to form conditions
of lodgement of petitions and compliance with reasonable direction.15 Procedural
factors such as Res Judicata are considered before entertaining the appropriateness of
a proceeding.16 It is submitted that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is another
such procedural guideline and does not violate the right under article 32.
13
Supra 4.
14
Article 32 of Constitution of India.
15
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996.
16
Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457.

2. WHETHER MINING IS LEGAL IN RESERVED FOREST OF SWADESHI
12. The respondent submits that the mining project which is sanctioned by the
government is completely legal and in consonance with environment protection act
1986, forest conservation act 1980 and other laws in force. The FRA and PESA do
not interfere with the right of the state to mine uranium. This court has held that state
is the owner of minerals present within its territory. 17 Moreover, FRA is in addition to
and not in derogation of other laws in force.18 Since there is no law to the contrary
laws in force include atomic energy act.
13. The petitioner submits that the mining project is in consonance with atomic energy act
1962 [2.1], forest conservation act 1980 [2.2], environment protection act 1986 [2.3],
mines and minerals (development and regulation) act 1957 [2.4] and finally, in any
case, states rights over its minerals and mines is not restricted.
2.1 Atomic Energy Act 1962
14. The respondent submits that every person who has discovered or has a reason to
believe that uranium occurs in any part of India shall intimate the central
government.19 Hence, DoAE was duty bound for reporting the presence of uranium in
reserved forest of Swadeshi. Following the report of DoAE central government
respondent herein taking control of the uranium mining and leasing the land for this
purpose which is in accordance with the provision of the act.20
15. Further, it is submitted that respondents have acted according to provisions of section
10 of the act which confers a right to acquire and use any land for its purpose of
erecting any necessary building and installing any necessary plant about working of
minerals.21
17
Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India, AIR 1976 SC 2591.
18
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act Sec. 13 (1996).
19
Section 4(2) Atomic Energy Act 1962: - Every person who has a reason to believe that Uranium or Thorium
occurs at any place in India shall without delay, send intimation of such belief and the reasons therefor to the
Central Government or to any such person or authority as aforesaid.
20
Section 5:- If the Central Government is satisfied that any person is mining or is engaged in treating or
concentrating by any physical, chemical or metallurgical process, any substance from which uranium can be
isolated or extracted, the Central Government by notice in writing given to that person-Require him in
conducting the mining operations or in treating or concentrating the substance aforesaid to comply with such
terms and conditions and adopt such process as the Central Government may in notice, or from time to time
thereafter, think fit to specify.
21
Section 10:- Where it appears to the Central Government that any minerals from which in its opinion any of
the prescribed substances can be obtained are present in or on any land, it may by order provide for

16. This has been strengthening in the provision of section 14 22 which confers complete
control over production and use of atomic energy upon the central government.23
17. In the present case, the respondent has directed the company to conduct mining
activities in reserved forest of swadeshi as a remedy for power crisis in Indiana. This
is in accordance with section 22 of the act which gives the authority to develop a
sound and adequate national policy regarding atomic power and in accordance with
section 30 which states power of central govt. to make rules for carrying out purposes
for this particular act24 and section 31 states that every provisions and rules under this
act is binding on the government.
18. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that safety provisions laid down in was totally
followed in accordance with this act. Section 17 of atomic energy act 1962, lays down
special provisions relating to safety. The central government may make any provision
by rules to prevent injury caused to the health of the person by the radiation of any
radioactive substance and make provision to secure the safe disposal of radioactive
waste. In the present case, the state has taken the measures to safeguard and ensure
risk management system25 in case there is any exposure by radioactive substances
during the project.
19. So, the state should strike a balance between economic development and should
proceed with the mining activity only after complying with the rules and guidelines. It
is necessary to use the atomic energy in the view of development as the country is
facing energy crisis which effects not only the livelihood of labours but also the
public on whole.
2.2 Forest Conservation Act 1980
20. It is submitted that the respondent alone has the power26 to approve any activity that
results in conversion of forest for non-forest purposes27 and de-reservation of forest.
Any mining lease can be obtained from the central government that can exercise its
compulsorily vesting in the Central Government the exclusive right, to work for those minerals or pass any
subsequent order for compulsorily vesting.
22
Section 14 Atomic energy act 1962.
23
Electronics Corporation of India Limited Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (1) ALT 794.
24
Section 14 & Section 30 Atomic energy act 1962.
25
Moot proposition annexure A.
26
Section 2, Forest conservation act 1980.
27
T.N. GodavarmanTirumulpad v. Union of India, 1997 (2) SC 67; B.S. Sandhu v. Govt. of
India,2014(7)SCALE390.

power under clause 3 of section 2(1) of the act and deems it necessary for economic
development with some measures taken in furtherance of it.28
21. Section 3 of scheduled tribe and traditional forest dwellers act, 2006 provides various
rights of traditional forest dwellers with respect to use of forest land and its products
which includes restriction on production of non-conventional source of energy. In the
present case mining activity is done for production of atomic energy by uranium
which is a conventional source of energy. This act has neither expressly nor impliedly
taken away rights of state over the minerals lying underneath the forest land.29
2.3 Environment Protection Act 1986
22. The respondent humbly submits that the mining activities are valid and are in
accordance with the provisions of environment protection act 1986.30 Section 8 of the
act states that any person shall handle any hazardous substance only after complying
with the safeguards prescribed in the case of A.P. pollution control board vs Prof.
M.V. Naidu31 where it was stated that just by mere reason of an industry being
hazardous it cannot be debarred from functioning. Necessary steps need to be taken to
safeguard the environment and the people.
23. It is submitted that the mining activity is related to hazardous substance but the
respondent herein, has taken all necessary steps to safeguard the environment from
damage which is in accordance with section 8 of the act. The project to develop
effective emergency response procedure to ensure appropriate risk management
system in the public domain if any due to the project.32
2.4 Mines and Minerals
24. The respondent submits that section 13 of the act related to grant of mining leases in
respect of land in which minerals vest. The stipulation of mining plan includes
mineral reserves area, assessment of impact of mining activity and detail of the
scheme, if restoration of the area is by afforestation.33
28
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985 SC 814.
29
Supra 17.
30
Section 8:- No person shall handle or cause to be handled any hazardous substance except in accordance with
such procedure and after complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed.
31
2000 (3) SCALE 354.
32
33
Ishwar Industries v Union of India, AIR 2004 Del 294.

25. Rule 3 of the Mineral Concessions Rules of 196034 which were framed in furtherance
of MMDR Act 1957, states that nothing in this rule shall affect the functioning of the
provision of atomic energy act of 1962. In earlier submission it has been showed that
respondent has followed every provision of atomic energy act 1962 for the mining
operations.
2.5 States rights over its Mines and Minerals are not restricted
26. The respondents submit that the atomic energy act 1962, confers the central
government with eminent domain powers for its mining and extraction.35 In the case
of Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Govt. of India36 court held that state is the owner of
minerals within its territory. The rights of TFDs (Traditional forest dwellers) under
FRA do not interfere with aforesaid power of the state. This is because FRA is in
addition to and not in derogation of other laws at force. In a famous case this court has
affirmed that FRA has not interfered with the right of state over mines and minerals
lying underneath the forest land, which stand vested in the state.37 Thus, the right of
the state to mine the uranium remains undisturbed.
27. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the rights of TFDs has not been settled. It is
submitted that no evidence on record shows that the settlement of rights has not been
completed. Further, displaced tribal communities are being compensated in
accordance with the relevant laws in force.38 Therefore, the act of the state is not in
violation of section 4 clause 5 of FRA.39
34
Rule 3. Saving of Act 33 of 1962 : Nothing in these rules shall affect the provisions of the Atomic Energy
Act, 1962 ( 33 of 1962) and the rules made there under in respect of licensing relating to atomic minerals listed
in Part B of the First Schedule to the Mines and Minerals Act 1957.
35
The cumulative effect of the Act is to grant complete powers over uranium mining, extraction but, specifically,
Sec. 3 and 10 vest the Central Government with rights to compulsorily acquire and mine any land that contains
uranium.
36
Supra 17.
37
Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476.
38
39
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act Sec. 4(5) (2006).

3. WHETHER THE STATE ACTION IS ARBITRARY
28. The respondent humbly submits that the state action of mining in reserved forest of
Swadeshi is not arbitrary as it is not violative of article 14 [3.1], and not violative of
article 19 [3.2].
3.1 State action is not in violation of article 14
29. The respondents submit that article 14 ensures fairness40 and guarantees against
arbitrariness.41 It provides that every action of the government must be informed by
reasons and guided by public interest.42 The establishment and development of
uranium mining facility is not arbitrary as it is based on strict reasons. The large-scale
electricity crisis has disabled the country and its people from following the daily
activities. Indiana now depends heavily upon this uranium mining project to bridge
the gap. It is in furtherance of the order of the court which this court gave in All
Indiana Labour Forum and others vs. Union of Indiana.43 Moreover, it has not been
shown before this court that forced assimilation, in any form has been done by the
state. Therefore, it can be said that the action of the state regarding this mining
activity is not in violation of article 14.
3.2 State action is not in violation of article 19
30. The respondents submit that the rights granted under article 19 of the constitution has
not been violated as the tribal communities clearly enjoy the right to guaranteed under
article 19(1)(d) and (e) [3.2.1], the right under article 19(1)(g) [3.2.2].
3.2.1 Right under article 19(1)(d) and (e)

31. The respondent submits that the fundamental right of the indigenous tribal
communities to move freely as guaranteed under 19(1)(d) has not been violated in the
present case. The government through MoEF has stated a general condition for the EC
that RUC shall allow indigenous communities to access the forest for firewood etc. A
non-compliance of conditions mentioned will render the EC invalid. By this way the
40
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101; Mahesh Chandra v. Regional
Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn, AIR 1993 SC 935.
41
Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872; Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000
SC 3313.
42
M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 Guj 160; LIC v. Consumer Education and
Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811.
43
Moot proposition para 10 and 11.

government provides a free pass to the tribal communities to access forest for various
uses.
32. Article 19(1)(e) of the constitution has not been violated as the tribal communities are
only displaced from the sites of mining and not from the swadeshi forest. They can
still settle along the borders of Namro and exercise their right under 19(1)(e).
33. In any case reasonable restriction under article 19(5) of the constitution can be
imposed to set aside the rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(e). The reasonable
restriction can be imposed if the state action is in public interest.44
34. Public interest means a subject matter in which rights of the public or a section of
public is interest45 to the means of concern which is advantageous to people as whole.
The country Indiana is suffering from energy crisis46 which in turn has led to closure
of industries. This will cause disturbances of public on whole and will also be hurdle
for development of the country. The decision of this court in All Indiana Labour
Forum and others vs. Union of Indiana47 recognised the importance of electricity in
this time of power crisis. The government policies are in direction of producing
electricity to overcome this power crisis. Therefore, the court and the government
both consider this problem of power crisis is of great public importance and of utmost
concern. So, article 19(5) can be imposed if it is in public interest.48
3.2.2 The right under article 19(1)(g)

35. Article 19 (1) (g)49 provides for the right to practice any profession within the territory
of Indiana. The respondent submits that there is no violation of the said rights. The
indigenous tribal people enjoy the right to carry out with any profession of their
choice. The government while providing with the condition with EC that RUC shall
allow the indigenous communities to assess the firewood of forests. Agriculture and
such other livelihood rights in accordance to their customary practices. 50 Therefore,
the indigenous peoples right of foraging the forests, which in many ways is their
livelihood, has not been violated.
44
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001.
45
Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1965 Ker 161.
46
Moot proposition para 8.
47
Moot proposition para 10 and 11.
48
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.
49
Supra 14 at Art. 19(1)(g).
50

36. In any case, article 19(1)(g) is subjected to limits as may be imposed by the state in
interest of public welfare.51 Government policy in public interest would over right the
business interest of an individual person.52 It would be social justice in considering
the greater good for sacrificing a little. Therefore, it is submitted that the right under
article 19 of the constitution is not infringed.
37. Moreover, the action of state is not arbitrary on contrary the action of petitioner is
illegal as these tribal communities rose up in arms against the mining activities in the
demarcated areas.53
51
Obbayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, AIR 1999 Kant
157 (165).
52
State of Orissa v. Radheyshyam Meher, AIR 1995 SC 855 (857).
53

4. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS TRIBAL COMMUNITIES ARE

INFRINGED
38. The respondent submits that the mining project does not unjustifiably violate the
rights of the tribal communities. The rights such as the right to livelihood or shelter
are an extension of rights guaranteed under article 21. To establish the violation of
article 21 of the constitution the act should be subjected to the equality test of article
14 and test of reasonableness under article 1954 However, these rights are not absolute
and certain restrictions could be imposed if the state is acting in accordance with the
due procedure established by law. Therefore, mining project does not violate the right
to shelter [4.1], the mining project does not violate the right to environment [4.2],
mining project does not violate right to health [4.3], the mining project does not
violate the right to livelihood [4.4], the mining project does not violate any religious
rights [4.5].
4.1 Right to Shelter

39. The respondent submits that the tribal communities occupy the swadeshi forest55
which has a large area but only an area of 57 sq. km. has been leased.56 The tribal
communities do not face eviction on account of the mining project which violates
their right to shelter as there is nothing on record to indicate that there is displacement
[4.1.1]; however, displacement is not a violation of right to shelter [4.1.2].
4.1.1 There is nothing on record to indicate displacement

40. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached the court merely on apprehension of
displacement. There is nothing on record which suggests that the tribal communities
are displaced or under real threat of displacement. This court on multiple occasion has
stated that there should be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which the
court may proceed. The litigant cannot expect the court to engage in fishing or roving
inquiry.57
41. Records such as to how many persons have vacated their houses and how many them
have handed over the possession of their land has been held relevant by this court in
54
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
55
56
57
A. Hamsaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 51; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR
2004 SC 280.

case of displacement and rehabilitation.58 In absence of these records the relevant fact
could not be established and so the submission must be outset.
4.1.2 Displacement is not a violation of right to shelter

42. The respondent submits that in a similar case this court has held that the displacement
of tribal does not result in violation of their fundamental rights. 59 The courts have
drawn a distinction between forced eviction and lack of rehabilitation.60 the tribal
communities may get displaced for the mining project, however this alone is not
sufficient to establish article 21. Even ILO convention no. 169 allows for involuntary
displacement in interest of national economic development.61 In the present case the
tribal communities have been compensated according to the laws in force.62
Moreover, there is possibility for the tribal communities to lead a better life than the
earlier one.
43. Further, it is submitted that the displacement is in interest of national economic
development. Indiana is suffering from power crisis which is resulting in closure of
many factories and industries.63 This does not only affect the livelihood of workers
employed there but is also diminishing the economic development of the country.
Tribal communities are also being compensated by the way of employment which the
state is providing.64 The state has taken sufficient measures in this regard. Therefore,
the restriction on right to shelter, if any, is just, fair and reasonable.
4.2 The Mining Project Does Not Infringe Right to Environment
44. The respondent submits that the mining project does not violate the right to
environment since the project is inspected by competent body that ensures the safety
of environment [4.2.1]. The question whether the project is dangerous is essentially of
scientific one and beyond the scope of judicial review [4.2.2], the right to
environment can be balanced with right to development [4.2.3].
58
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of M.P., Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2011.
59
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.
60
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, (2009) 8 SCC 46.
61
ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO No. 169).
62
Moot proposition annexure 8.
63
64

4.2.1 The project is being inspected by competent body

45. The respondent submits that the mining project and like operations take place with
utmost care to eliminate and minimise hazards.65 All Mining operations by UCIL are
subject to constant environmental and radiological surveillance by various
independent bodies such as Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Director General of
Mines Safety, State Pollution Control Board, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and
International Commission on Radiological Protection which checks for compliance
with all regulations and safety standards.66
46. Moreover, major change in environment does not take place due to the mining project
as the government through MoEF has provided conditions for afforestation in
equivalent area.67 The government has also provided for emergency response system
and non-obstruction of water course.68 Therefore, it is submitted that right to
environment under article 21 has not been violated.
47. Moreover this apex court ruled that the government acknowledges the importance of
the actions and the consequences, which have been kept in mind all through the policy
making process.69 In a foreign case the court though acknowledging the fact that the
rights of the person involved is affected in a strict interpretation of the guidelines,
ultimately found that running an economic institution like an airport was a modern
economic necessity that justified the breach.70 It is also to be considered that after
compliance with the rules set out by the Hon'ble Court, which are very similar to the
conditions laid down here by the DoEF, this Court allowed the furtherance of the
Uranium mining project in Rajiv Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary. The mining project is
under strict supervision of the competent authorities and is followed by strict
safeguard for environment. The project also provides for emergency response for risk
management which may arise due to the project.71 Therefore, the mining should be
allowed.
65
Myths -Unfounded apprehensions available at http://www.ucil.gov.in/web/myths.html (last visited oct 14,
2017).
66
See Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules (2004); Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive
Wastes) Rules (1987); AERB Safety Guide to AERB Management of Radioactive Waste Code (2007).
67
68
Ibid.
69
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, 2001 (92) RD 689 (SC).
70
Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom, 12 EHRR 355.
71
Moot Proposition Annexure A.

4.2.2 Scientific question are beyond the scope of judicial review

48. The issue of environmental safety of the mine is one that requires scientific expertise.
This Court does not possess the requisite expertise to adjudicate on intricate scientific
questions or conflicting expert opinions.72 Consequently, there is a long-standing tradition
of this Court not interfering with the decisions to experts.73 In Tehri Bandh Virodhi
Sangarsh Samiti, it was held that the role of the Court is only to investigate whether the
Government was alive to the inherent dangers of a project and whether the Government
had applied its mind to the safety of a project.74 In the present case the respondent has
considered the safety aspects and reconfirmed it with the experts. Therefore, the present
case is beyond the scope of judicial review.
4.2.3 Right to environment can be balanced with right to environment

49. The respondent submits that the Union of Indiana is suffering from power crisis which is
resulting in closer of industries75 which in many ways has chopped the economic growth
and employment generation of the country. It is the duty of the govt. to provide the people
of country with necessary conditions for living a peaceful life as guaranteed by the
Constitution.76 Many industries were closed due to this power crisis.77
50. Thus, there is a compelling need to resolve the electricity crisis in the interest of the right
to livelihood of the laid off/retrenched employees78 of those industries and in interest of
general public. The state is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in
discharge of its constitutional obligation in larger public interest.79 Moreover this honble
court in the case of All Indiana Labour Forum vs. Union of Indiana80 was of opinion that
there is need of power to resolve this power crisis and ruled that alternative energy
sources must be found.81 This court on previous occasions also has recognized the
importance of energy for economic growth and development.82
72
Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 44.
73
University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491; Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing &
Processing Coop. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1997) 8 SCC 31.
74
Supra 72.
75
76
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
77
78
79
Consumer Education and Research Centre and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1995 SC 922.
80
Moot Proposition Para 11.
81
Ibid.
82
G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620; Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1987 SC 374.

51. It is submitted that the power crisis acts as a barrier in the way of development of the
country. Therefore, cancelling the mining of the project would also attract the
attention of Art. 21 of the Constitution as Right to Development is read under Art.
21.83 Further, it has been accepted that no development is possible without some
adverse effect on ecology and environment.84 A proper balance must be struck
between the protection of the environment and development process.85
52. Therefore, even if the mining project has the potential to cause harm, it should be
allowed for greater public interest. The approach which this court has earlier
adopted86 must be considered and decide likewise.
53. It is submitted that striking the aforesaid balance between maintaining the
environment and solving other problems is for government87 and not the court.88 The
action of mining the uranium for generation of power is delicate policy of the govt.
This court on multiple occasions has stated that it is beyond the judicial review to
examine the wisdom behind a policy.89 The court does not test the correctness of a
policy or strike it down merely because there are alternatives that are in courts
opinion may be fairer or wiser.90 Therefore, the delicate decision of the govt. for
generation of energy should not be interfered lightly. In the present case, the country
is suffering from power crisis affecting society at large and most feasible way found 91
for generation of power is by mining of uranium. In the absence of any alternative
feasible way available and in condition of this continuing threat of power crisis which
will also lead to closer of more industries, the mining project should be allowed.
83
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Appeal 4601-02 of 1997.
84
Supra 27.
85
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 281; Rambhau Patil v.
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation 2002(1) Bom CR 76; People United for better Living in
Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal. 215.
86
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751; G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India, (2013) 6
SCC 620.
87
Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v.Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company, (1991) 2
SCC 538; Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652.
88
Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v.Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company, (1991) 2
SCC 538; Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109.
89
BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333; Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal (2000) 8
SCC 262; G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620.
90
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors. [2009] INSC 1077; Premium Granites vs.
State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691.
91
Moot Proposition Para 12.

4.3 Right to Health
54. The respondent submits that the right to health of the tribal communities have not
been violated as the mining project is under strict provisions of safety regulation and
standards.
55. The yardstick for permissible level is determined by the appropriate authorities, and
there is no scope for judicial intervention unless these permissible limits are crossed.92
This rule is applicable even in cases concerning radiation.93 The absence of any
evidence from the side of respondent which shows that the permissible limits are
crossed demands the dismissal of the case.
56. Moreover, it has been held that sometimes the ill-effects of technology have to be
tolerated as the cost of their advantages.94 In the present situation where Indiana is
suffering from shortage of power the uranium mining is in public interest. Therefore,
adopting a balancing approach would be the right one. The benefits of mining project
overweigh the apprehension of minor health problem. So, extraction of uranium
should be allowed.
4.4 Right to Livelihood
57. The respondent submits that the right to livelihood of the tribal communities as
guaranteed under Art. 21 has not been violated. There is no violation of right to
livelihood as the tribal are merely displaced [4.4.1], and the restriction is justified
[4.4.2].
4.4.1 There Is No Deprivation of Livelihood

58. The respondent submits that the tribal communities depend in the products of forest
for their livelihood.95 The state is allowing the tribal to access the forest and continue
the activity necessary for livelihood according to their customary practices. The EC
sanctioned by MoEF states such condition that is to be sanctioned for grant of EC. In
the present case, tribal communities are free to come to forest and gather the forest
product for means of their livelihood. Moreover, this apex court held that a land
92
Mathew Lukose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board, (1990) 2 KLT 686.
93
Dr. Shivarao Shantaram Wagle v. Union Of India, AIR 1988 SC 952; Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery
Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33; M.K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1987) 3 SCC 231.
94
Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33.
95
Moot proposition Para 3.

acquisition for public purpose does not violate the right to livelihood.96 So, it cannot
be argued that mere displacement is sufficient to establish deprivation of livelihood.
4.4.2 The Restriction on Livelihood is justified

59. It is submitted that the right to livelihood is not absolute and is sometimes has to yield
to compelling public interest.97 In the present case the country is suffering from power
crisis. This has laid to closer of many industries and their worker laid off or
retrenched. If the power crisis continues then it may lead to closer of more industry,
paralyzing the economy of Indiana.
60. This Court on similar facts agreed with the executive's decision to prioritize the
industrial growth of the country and demand for energy over the right of adivasis to
collect forest produce.98 The right to livelihood is not absolute and under reasonable
restrictions. Therefore, right to livelihood has not been violated.
4.5 Religious and Cultural Rights
61. The respondent submits that the tribal communities are not denied of their cultural
and religious rights. The mining project does not violate the right to religion [4.5.1],
right to culture [4.5.2].
4.5.1 Right to Religion

62. Right to practice any religion is guaranteed under Art.25 to the citizens of Indiana.99 It
is submitted that the mining project does not violate the right to religion. Cases which
have required the court to interfere on ground on violation of Art. 25 by
developmental projects have stated the specific religious practice, such as worship of
a particular deity100or conduct of a ceremony101 that is infringed. Furthermore, the
freedom of religion is not absolute102 and extends to only those religious practices that
96
Supra 14 Art. 19(6) (1950); Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.
97
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051; Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 374.
98
Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 374.
99
Supra 14 at Art. 25.
100
Supra 37.
101
Chewang Pintso Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, W.P.(C) No. 22/2012.
102
Commissioner H.R.E v. L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282; Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State Of
Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853; Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj and Others v.
State of Gujarat & Others, AIR 1974 SC 2098; Church Of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony
Welfare, AIR 2000 SC 2773.

are essential or integral.103 In the present case the petitioner has only made assertion
that the lands and rocks are sacred but did not showed how this project actually
infringes the right to religion.
63. Even if the project violates the right to religion then also the violation is justified. The
right to religion is not absolute104 and can be restricted on other provisions of part III
of the Constitution. The right to development has been read into Article 21.105 In cases
of encroachment of religious rights, it is legitimate for the State to step in to balance
competing interests taking into account the Directive Principles and social welfare as
a whole.106
64. In the present case the mining project is for resolving the power crisis in the country
for development of economy of the country and also for the livelihood of the workers
employed there. The uranium mining is most feasible way for the production of
energy107 therefore the project must be interpreted to be in pursuance of the right to
development. Hence, it is submitted that the restriction on right to religion is justified.
4.5.2 Right to Culture

65. Article 29(1) guarantee to every section of citizens having a distinct language, script
or culture the right to conserve the same.108 In the present case, the tribal communities
living on the sites of mining are to be displaced but it cannot be said that it violated
Art 29 of the Constitution. The displaced tribal communities will not force to change
their culture but they will be assimilated with new groups. It is considered that the
gradual assimilation of the indigenous people in the mainstream of the society will
lead to their betterment and progress.109 Assimilation is inevitable in a political
system based on democracy and impartial justice.
66. The assimilation between migrants and the indigenous people has been incorrectly
assumed to have a negative impact. The interaction between two cultural groups is a
form of progression. The two communities will share their culture and by this way
they will progress. This does not infringe the culture of the displaced tribal
103
Commissioner Of Police v. Acharya J. Avadhuta and Anr., AIR 2004 SC 2984; Church Of God (Full Gospel)
v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare, AIR 2000 SC 2773; Mohammed Fasi v. Superintendent Of Police, (1985)
ILLJ 463 Ker.; Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255.
104
Supra 102.
105
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Appeal 4601-02 of 1997.
106
Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098
107
108
Supra 14 at Art. 29.
109
Supra 59.

communities. In fact, increased interaction between isolated communities is necessary

to promote healthy cultural dialogue. Therefore, the mining project does not violate
the right to culture.

PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed
that this Honble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that;
1. The instant Writ Petition is not maintainable;
2. The mining activity is legal in reserved forest of swadeshi.
3. The state action is not arbitrary
4. The mining project do not infringes the rights of tribal communities
And pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Counsel for the Respondents.
a TC-05

Final Solution R

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Solution R

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TEAM CODE- TC-05

B. M. S MEMORIAL 3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ / 2017

(FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950)

SWADESHI SURAKSHA SAMITI & ORS. .. PETITIONERS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .............................................................................................................III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................X

STATEMENT OF FACT ............................................................................................................... XI

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................................... XIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... XIV

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................................. 1

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FALLING UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE ....................... 1

PIL Public Interest Litigation

1. A. Hamsaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu ......................................................................... 11

3. Acharya Maharajshri Narendera Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat

4. Amritlal Nathubhai Shah v. Union Government of India .......................................... 4, 7

6. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal ........................................................... 11

7. Atomic Energy Act 1962 ............................................................................................... 4

8. Avishek Goenka v. Union of India .............................................................................. 13

9. B.S. Sandhu v. Govt. of India ........................................................................................ 5

10. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab .................................................................................... 9

11. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India................................................... 1

12. BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India .............................................................. 14

13. Banwasi Sewa Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, ....................................................... 13

15. Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ............................................................... 15, 16

16. Chewang Pintso Bhutia v. State of Sikkim .................................................................. 16

18. Commissioner H.R.E v. L.T. Swamiar ........................................................................ 16

19. Commissioner Of Police v. Acharya J. Avadhuta and Anr ......................................... 16

21. Court On Its Own Motion V. Union Of India ................................................................ 9

22. Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v.Bombay Suburban Electricity

23. Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ............................................................................ 3

24. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress ............................................. 8

25. Dr. Shivarao Shantaram Wagle v. Union Of India, ..................................................... 15

27. Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh .............................................................. 14

28. Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India .................................................................... 8

29. G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India ......................................................................... 13, 14

30. Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors ............................. 1

31. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi ................................................................................. 12

32. Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India .......................................... 1

34. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P ......................................................................................... 9

35. Kuttisankaran Nair v. State of Kerala ............................................................................ 9

36. LIC v. Consumer Education and Research .................................................................... 8

37. M S Bhut Educational Trust v. State of Gujarat, ........................................................... 8

38. M.K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Ltd ....................................................................... 15

39. Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn ...................................... 8

40. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ............................................................................... 10

41. Mathew Lukose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board, .......................................... 15

42. Mohammed Fasi v. Superintendent Of Police ............................................................. 16

43. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India .......................................................................................... 1

44. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of M.P .................................................................. 11

45. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India......................................................... 14, 17

46. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union Of India .............................................................. 11

47. Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal........................................................................... 8, 14

48. Obbayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,

49. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation ........................................................... 13

50. Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, ........................... 7

52. PN Kumar v. Municipal Corp of Delhi ...................................................................... 1, 2

53. Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom ....................................................................... 12