SPEECH

If it may please the Honourable court, the counsel on behalf of petitioner would like to approach
the Dias. (granted), much obliged.
Petitioner will refer this bench as your Lordships
This is counsel 1 and will be dealing with issue 1 and 3 {read those issues}. And my co-
counsel will be dealing with issue 2 and 4. Counsel 1 will be taking 10 minutes and counsel 2
will take 15 minutes and we reserve 5 minutes for rebut. (much obliged)

If your Lordships are well versed with the facts of the case the counsel would like to proceed.
(granted) Much obliged your Lordship. And proceed……..

Your lordship my first issue : That the PIL filled by save blue seeking interference of supreme
court is maintainable.
= since The petition is filed under ARTICLE 32 of CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA. Hence the
PIL filed by petitioner is maintainable. We have approached this honourable court under article
32. Which grants every citizen has right to move to the supreme court by appropriate proceeding
for the enforcement of fundamental right wherein the SC acts as the guardian of fundamental
rights and any person whose FRs is violated can approach the SC for Remedy. Since violation of
FRs is the sine qua non of the exercise of the rights conferred by Art 32. And here there has
been violation of our FRs.

Therefore we have approached this honourable supreme court as our FR has been violated.

Your lordship PIL plays an important role in upholding the interest of large as held in case of
Mumbai Kamgar sabha vs abdul bhai Faizulla bhai and others., lexically PIL means a legal
action initiated in a court of law with purpose of enforcement of public interest or general
interest.

There in this case your Lordships to protect the tribal people and the state from illegal migration
which led to threat to life of Local people, National Resourses and Burden on the nation caused
the petitioners to file PIL before this honourable SC.

In Case of SP GUPTA vs UOI, Justice Bhagwati stated “ Any member of the public having
sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach
of public duty Or from violation of some provision of the constitution or Law and seek
enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional provision.

INTERFERANCE OF SAVE BLUE IS MAINTAINABLE

In ABSK sangh vs UOI , the SC overruled the objection that an unrecognized organization
cannot file a petition under Article32. Your lordship the counsel states that Save blue is a
prominent organization devoted to Research and other works to develop marine ecosystem which
filed PIL with many top native people and former MP. Hence your lordship respondent on no
ground can question the recognition of Save Blue and hence PIL submitted by the Save Blue
Organisation is Maintainable under Article 32 of Indian Constitution. As constitution grants its
citizen right to constitutional remedies. Under which person can move SC for getting his rights
protected.

In this case Concerned the law passed Under CRZ 2019 Is violative of FR Provided under part
III of the constitution of India.

Your lordship counsel pleads that in this present case there is violation of article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.

Since, the law passed under CRZ 2019 deprives the tribal people of Hamanta island to carry on
their occupation which needs to be protected under the COI. As per Art 21- “No person shall be
deprieved of his Life or Personal Liberty. Your honour here the term life and personal liberty
also includes the right to Livlihood as held in case of Olga tellis nd ors vs BMC nd ors, 1986.

Since in this case your lordship Law Passed Under CRZ 2019 will severally affect the Lives of
Tribal People. As stated in the fact of the case that the gov has Launched a huge ocean power
project in sabath island which will include 10 coastal Villages and they were to be given
rehabilitation too and their primary occupation was fishing i.e means of Livlihood. And your
lordship giving them rehabilation would deprieve them of their means of occupation.

As held in the case of olga tellis vs BMC the court observed that persons in the position of
petitioners lived in slums and on pavements because they had small jobs in the city, they chose to
live in the pavements in the vicinity of their workplace to avoid commuting costs which cost
them too much as compared to their meagre earning. , Losing the shed meant losing the Job.
Which makes the Life Impossible to live. , it must deemed to be an integral componenet of the
right to LIFE. Your lordship for if a person is deprieved of his right to Livlihood he shall be
consequently deprieved of his rights to life, which is enshrined in Art 21, Taking the case in
concern, here the main source of living of Islanders were fishing and agriculture and deprieving
them of this would violate art 21.

Your lordship here it involves Substantial question of Law

By the provision of Art 21, of Constitution , which gives right to appeal if there is involved a
substantial question of law which needs to be decided by the S, if there has been controversy on
a question of Law and controversy needs to be decided by SC, then the court must have
jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter as held by 136th LAW COMMISSION REPORT.

As in this case concerned CRZV regulation is passed by the central Gov affecting one fifth of the
population and indeginious tribal people who are rarest in the world..

Your lordship this Regulation passed by the central Gov not only affects the Life of people but
also the ecosystem of the Country. As coastal region of sindia has wide variety of marine species
and also consists of 6% of Mangroves in Sindia.

Alternate remedy , high court under 226 and NGT

Furthermore , unlike in article 226,the remedy provided by art 32 is a fundamental right and not
merely a discretionary power of the court. { held in case of Daryao vs the state of up, and
tilokchandmotichand vs h.b.munshi} it is unnecessary to first approach the HC, and exhaust the
remedy under 226, before approaching the SC. HELD IN CASE OF{ ROMESH THAPAR VS
STATE OF Madras}, hence it was held before the honorable court that mere existence of
an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be per se be a good and sufficient ground for
dismissing a petition under art 32.

In the present scenario it has been prima facie established that the breach of FRs of the people
living in and around the vicinity of Hamantha island is there so petition is maintainable under art
32.

In spite of the availability of the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its writ Jurisdiction
in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the FRs held in case of
{harbansal sahnia vs IOC}. so your lordship it may be contended that NGT is better equipped to
hear this case , but the present case also deals with the FRs of people living in and around the
vicinity of hamantha Island and NGT is not equipped to assess the claims of the same.

The jurisdiction of NGT is circumscribed to adjudicating upon harm to the petitioner due to the
environmental consequences damages to the environment and damage to property. as given in
{NGT ACT Sec,2(1)(m)(2010) it does not include hearing cases related to FRs. Hence it may be
legal for NGT to hear this case but it wouldn’t be effective. Moreover under the NGT act only
the aggrieved person can seek relief from the court as given in NGT act SEC 16.. this bars any
person or organization working for the welfare of the people to approach To NGT.