TEAMCODE:SMCC14

4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

UNDER ARTICLE 131R/W ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF CENTRIA
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
TO BE HEARD THROUGH THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

23]
STATE OF CELIA & OTHERS ....................................................... PETITIONER
versus
UNION OF CENTRIA ........................................................................ RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-

-COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................III

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

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

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................XI

Statement Of Issues...............................................................................................................XIII

ISSUE 1.................................................................................................................................XIII

WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE SC OF CENTRIA ARE

MAINTAINABLE ?

ISSUE 2................................................................................................................................XIII

WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS ?

Summary Of Arguments.......................................................................................................XIV

Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................1

Prayer for relief.......................................................................................................................XV

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ANR ANOTHER

AP ANDHRA PRADESH

ART ARTICLE

BOM BOMBAY

CONST CONSTITUTION

DIIFB DHARMANCHAL INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENT FUND BOARD
ETC. ETCETERA

GDP GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

HC HIGH COURT

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

IBID IN THE SAME PLACE

J&K JAMMU & KASHMIR

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LTD LIMITED

M.P MADHYA PRADESH

NO NUMBER

ORS OTHERS

PARA PARAGRAPH

PVT PRIVATE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT CASES

SUPRA ABOVE

U.P UTTAR PRADESH

UOI UNION OF INDIA

V. VERSUS

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. ACTS & STATUTES

Sl. No. Title

1. Constitution Of India,1950

2. Environmental (Protection) Act 1986

3. Inter – State Water ( Prevention& Control of Pollution )Act ,1986

4. The River Boards Act ,1956

5. Indian Contract Act, 1872

B. LEGAL DATABASE

 Manupatra
 SCC Online
 India Code
 Casemine
 Indiankanoon

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

C. BOOKS

Sl. No. Title

1. D D Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, vol 5 (Justice S S

Subramani
ed, 9th edn, Lexis Nexis 2015) 4672.
2. J N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Dr Surendra Sahai Srivastava ed, 55th
edn, CLA 2018) 269.
3. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Justice Jasti Chelameshwar and Justice
Dama Seshadri Naidu eds, 7th edn, Lexis Nexis 2014) 877.
4. V N Shukla, V N Shukla’s Constitution of India (Mahendra Pal Singh ed, 13th
edn, EBC 2015) 128.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

CASES REFERRED

SI. No Name of the Citation

Case
1 Narmadao bachao Andolan v UOI AIR 2000 SC 1102

2 Vellore Citizens Forum, Petitioner v. Union of 2003 (10) SC 300

India and Others.
3 State of W.B v. UOI AIR 1963 SC 1241

4 State of T.N v K. Shayamsundar AIR 2011 SC 3470

5 Swaraj Abhiyan v. UOI AIR 2016 SC 2953

6 Shiromani Gurudawara Prabandak Committee v .Som AIR (2000) 4 SCC146

Nath Das
7 S.S Bola & Ors. v. B.D Sardhana & Ors AIR (1997)SC 3127

8 State of U.P v. Allied Constructions AIR 2004 SC 586,2003

(7) SCC 396
9 Nicholas v.Marshland [1] (1876) 2 ExD 1]

10 Ridhima Pandey v. UOI Original Application

No:187 of 2017
11 Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746

12 Chameli Singh v. State of U.P 1996 (2) SCC 549

13 Muhd.Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors Writ Petition( PIL) No.

126 of 2014
14 Manekha Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC597

15 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180 :

(1985) 3 SCC 545

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in response to

a Petition filed under Article 1311 of the Constitution of India, that the Supreme Court lacks
Jurisdiction to try these petitions under Art. 131 of the Constitution of India.
131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,
the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any
dispute
(a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or
(b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
other States on the other; or
(c) between two or more States, if and in so far as the dispute involves any question
(whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends: Provided
that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement,
covenant, engagements, and or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or
executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such
commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute.
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.

Article 32 in Constitution of India : 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.
(2The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant 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 clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under)clause (2).
(4The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution

This Memorial sets forth the facts, laws & the corresponding arguments on which
the claims are based in the instant case.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.Centria ,member of the United Nations , ratified all of the international human rights treaties
adopted by the United Nations. Active member of the International Labour Organisation, it has
ratified ILO Convention No. 169 .Centria stands as a testament to the harmonious coexistence of
tradition and modernity.

2.The State of Celia, federal unit of republic, primary residence for a substantial population of
an indigenous community named Kaitoon, has a deep cultural heritage, follow ancient traditions
and customs, including ceremonies that mark significant life events and seasonal changes.

3.The Senkia River in State of Celia, known for its cultural, recreational, and ecological
significance, longest river in the State of Celia. It approaches Cantonia a major city in Celia.
The Senkia river holds cultural significance for the indigenous Kaitoon community, has a
strong and enduring connection to the Senkia river, For them its not just a physical entity but a
living, breathing ancestor.

4.In March 2020, the federal government of Centria introduced a Bill in the Parliament of
Centria to confer legal personhood to the Senkia river. Subsequently enacted into law and
brought into force from April 2020.
The main purpose - to provide for the declaration of the Senkia River and the 'Senkia River
Land' as a legal person for protecting it as one living and integrated natural entity.
The Senkia River Protection Act aimed - recognize and protect the rights and interests of the
river as legal person. primary purpose - to acknowledge the spiritual, cultural, and ecological
significance of the river to the Kaitoon community ,to establish a framework for its guardianship
and management.

5.The Senkia River Protection Act also provided for the appointment of a Senkia Council
comprising -head of the Kaitoon community and representative of the Government of Centria.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

6.This Act was not well received by the State Government of Celia. The State Government of
Celia filed an Original Suit in the Supreme Court of Centria under Article 131 of the
Constitution of Centria challenging the vires of the Senkia River Protection Act.

7.In 2021, while the original suit was pending in the Supreme Court of Centria, the federal
government of Centria initiated a groundbreaking River Linking Project, seeking to interconnect
rivers within the nation. However, its implementation was resisted by Kaitoon community as it
violate the privacy of their cultural and spiritual practices. The government representative
opposed this idea.

8.The head of the Kaitoon community filed a petition, on behalf of Senkia river, under Article
32 of the Constitution of Centria praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Union of
Centria to exclude the Senkia river from the scope of the 'River Linking Project' as it is violative
of the fundamental rights of the Kaitoon community as well as the Senkia river.

9.Shelton, a resilient resident of Cantonia,caused to his property due to flood, decided to seek
justice and compensation for his losses. He filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Centria claiming compensation from Senkia river, stated that it violates right to a safe and
secure environment.

10..Hestin, the head of the Kaitoon community, filed a second petition on behalf of Senkia river
claiming compensation from the Union of Centria for its failure to take adequate measures for
climate change mitigation and adaptation.
He argued that negligence of Union of Centria in implementing effective climate policies,
preparedness, and infrastructure has resulted in extensive harm to the environment, public
property, and the livelihoods of communities residing along the bank of the river.

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF CENTRIA ARE MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS?

~ MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

~
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
CENTRIA ARE MAINTAINABLE?

The Counsel for Respondent humbly submits to this Hon’ble Court that the petitions filed by
the petitioners are not maintainable by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Centria as the petition
are meritless and there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens with reference
to Art. 32.

1. It is contended that the Senkia River Protection act is constitutionally valid and thus the
petition brought under the Article 131 cannot be maintained. The Central Government had
not deviated from the principle of Cooperative federalism.
2. The writ petitions filed under Art.32 of the constitution is not maintainable.
2.1 Petition filed by Hestin on behalf of Senkia River
It is humbly contended that the writ petition filed under Art. 32 is not maintainable since
in the instant case the implementation of River Linking Project is for greater public good
and not violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
2.2 Petion filed by Shelton
It is humbly contended that there is no violation of any fundamental rights of the
petitioner. The losses suffered by the petitioner is due to exceptionally high volume of
rainfall during the monsoon season which is an event outside of human control or activity.
2.3 Petition filed by Hestin on behalf of Senkia River
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is no negligence on the part of
the respondent that violated the rights of the Petitioner.
In the light of the above arguments the Counsel for respondent humbly submit before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Centria that the petitions filed by the petitioners are not
maintainable.

1
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITONERS?

The counsel for Respondent humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Centria
that the fundamental rights of the petitioners are not violated by the acts of the respondent.

1. Writ petition filed by the Hestin on behalf of Senkia River

It is humbly submitted that the writ petition filed under Art.32 in this context since the
implementation of River Linking Project is for greater public good and it does not violate
the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

2. Petition filed by Shelton

It is humbly submitted that the losses suffered by the petitioner has arisen out of Act of
God. There is no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners due to the acts of
the respondents.

3. Petition filed by Hestin on behalf of Senkia River

It is humbly submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent that
caused a loss or damage to the petitioner. The fundamental rights of the petitioners are not
violated.

2
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
CENTRIA ARE MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted by the Respondents to this Hon’ble Court, that the petitions filed by the
four petitioners are not maintainable. The suit filed by the State of Celia under Article 131 of
the constitution is clubbed with the three petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Centria.
The Senkia River Protection Act,2020 was enacted by the Federal Government of Centria for to
confer legal personhood to Centria River. The Act aimed to protect the rights and interest of the
river as if it were a legal person. The Act was formulated under the provisions under the
Constitution of Centria and is not ultra vires of the constitutional provisions. The suit filed under
Article 131 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

The writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are not maintainable.
The Senkia River Protection Act, 2020 provides legal status to the Senkia river and the Senkia
Council is appointed as the human face of the River. The act establishes a framework which
allows it to be represented in the legal matters and enables legal action to be taken on its behalf. 1
In this context the writ petition filed by Hestin, the head of the Kaitoon community on behalf of
the Senkia River is not maintainable.
The fundamental rights of neither the river nor the Kaitoon community are violated due to the
implementation of River Linking Project. The project is implemented for the development or
improvement of waterways which would benefit the larger community.

1
Moot proposition, para 4

3
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

The damages/ losses suffered by Shelton is due to heavy rainfall and the resulted flood in the
Senkia river which is an act outside the control or management of human activity.
There is no negligence on the part of the Central government that violates the fundamental
rights of the petitioner.
1.1Petition filed by State of Celia is not maintainable

The petition filed by State of Celia under Article 131 is not maintainable. The Respondent
contends that the Article stands for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Preliminary
objection of this suit therefore fails, and thus the suit will not be held to be maintainable and
should be dismissed.
The original jurisdiction of the supreme court was prescribed under Article 131 of the
Constitution Supreme Court will have exclusive jurisdiction, excluding all other courts, and
such dispute must be between either the Central Government and one or more State or states or
between two or more federal states. The dispute relating to the original jurisdiction of the Court
must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence of legal right depends.2 The term
‘legal right’ means a right recognized by law and capable of being enforced by the power of a
State but not necessarily in a court of law.3
 State of West Bengal v. Union of India 4 the Supreme Court was held by majority that it is
not truly federal.

In the case of State of West Bengal v Union of India, the Parliament had passed
Acquisition and Development Act, 1947 which gave the Central Government the power to
acquire land and rights which were vested with the state. This was the first instance when
Article 131 was invoked by a State against the Union Government and Section 4 and 7 of
the Act were challenged as being an ultra vires.

The Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is not federal entirely, and limitations
are imposed on the state in many aspects, even though there is a separation of powers.
Thereby, no compensation was given to the State of West Bengal and the suit was dismissed
with costs.
2
Constitutional Law of India Dr. J.N. Pandey
3
United Province v. Governor General in Council AIR 1939 FC 58
4
AIR 1963 SC 1241

4
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not extend in the case:
Legislative powers concerning water were distributed between the Centre and the states to
ensure optimum utilization while balancing the interests of the states. Schedule 7 of the
Constitution distinguishes between the use of water within a state and the purpose of
regulating interstate waters. It gives the Union Parliament the power to formulate laws and
mechanisms for regulating interstate rivers (Union List: Entry 56, List 1), while the states
retain autonomy regarding water utilisation for purposes such as water supply, irrigation and
canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power (State List: Entry 17 of
List 2), subject to the provisions of Entry 56, List 1 5

Under Article 262(2) Parliament maay by law exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
disputes with respect to use, distribution or control of the water of any inter-State river or
river-valley.
Under Article 262 Parliament has passed the River Board Act, 1956 and the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956. The River Board Act is meant for the regulation and development of
inter-State rivers and river valleys. This is established on the request of the State Government
to advise the Government. The Water Disputes Act empowers the Central Government to set
up a Tribunal for the adjudication of such disputes. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final
and binding on the parties to the dispute. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court shall
have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to such a Tribunal
under that Act.6

In State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar7 AIR 2011 SC 3470 court held that a law
cannot be declared ultravires on the ground of hardship but can be done so on the ground of
unreasonableness. The court must be satisfied in respect of substantive unreasonableness in
the statute itself 8

5.Harish Salve, “Interstate River Water Disputes,” in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of The Indian Constitution,” (New

York: Oxford University Press, 2016).

6. ibid (2)

7.Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar ii AIR 2011 SC 3470

8.ibid (2) pg 709 para 3

The Senkia River Protection Act has been formulated to protect the rights and interest of the

5
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

river and to acknowledge the spiritual cultural and economic significance of the river to the
Kaitoon community. The objectives of the act includes (a) Acknowledging Senkia river as a
living entity with intrinsic value to the Kaitoon community and other stakeholders (b)
Affirming its role in the cultural and spiritual identity (c) providing a legal framework for the
protection and restoration of the ecological health of the river (d) recognising it as a vital
ecosystem (e) collaborative and inclusive approach to the management of river by involving
both the Kaitoon community, the Centria federal government as well as other relevant stake
holders (f) granting Senkia river legal status as a person which allows it to be represented in
legal matters and enables legal action to be taken on behalf.
The provisions of the Act are for the best interest of the river and does not violated the
existing constitutional provisions There is no reasonable ground for declaring the Act to be
ultravires.

The opening words of Art. 246(1) 9“notwithstamding anything in clauses (2) and (3)” and the
opening words of clause(3) “subject to clauses(1) and (2)” expressly secure the predominance
of union list over the state list and concurrent list and that the concurrent list over the state
list.10

In Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India11 the apex court held that the State cannot refuse to
abide and follow the law under the statutes enacted by the Parliament and create a
smokescreen of a lack of finance or some other grounds.
Hence the original suit petition filed by State of Celia before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Centria is not maintainable.

9.bareact Art.246
10. ibid (2) pg 713 para 5
11. AIR 2016 SC 2953

6
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1.2 Petition filed by Hestin on behalf of Senkia River

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Centria that the petition filed by
Hestin on behalf of Senkia river under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The
petition is not found to be maintainable mainly under two grounds:
1.2.1 The legal Representation of Senkia River
The Senkia River protection Act 2020 was enacted by the Federal government to provide legal
status for the river. The provisions of the act establishes a framework which allows it to be
represented in the legal matters and enables legal action to be taken on its behalf. As per the
provisions of the Act Senkia Council is appointed as the human face of the River which consist
of a member from the Kaitoon community as well as the Central government. In this context,
any grievances on part of the river should be represented by the Senkia Council.

In the case of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandak Committee v. Som Nath Das12 it was held
that a juristic person like any other natural person in law also conferred with rights and
obligations and is dealt with in accordance with law. In other words, the entity acts like a
natural person but only through a designated person, whose acts are processed with ambit of
law.
The River Linking Project initiated by the Central government is for the betterment of a larger
public and the project doesn’t affect the sanctity of the river. The Senkia River Protection Act
has been formulated to address the interest of the river as well as the Kaitoon community. In this
context the petitioner can’t be considered as a designated person to represent the river.

12.AIR (2000) 4 SCC 146

7
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1.2.2 Right to development under Article 21

The right to environment and the right to development have their origin in Article 21 of the
constitution. The United Nations Declaration on the on Right to Development(1968) declared
development a human right, which is commonly categorized as a ‘third generation’ human right
or solitary right. These rights are said to be as equally inalienable and universal as the ‘first
generation’ and ‘second generation’ human rights.13
In the case of S.S. Bola & ors. v. B.D. Sardhana & Ors14 the court recognized Right to
Development as a fundamental right. Taking into account the Declaration of “Right to
Development Convention” adopted by United Nations and ratified by India of which Art. 3(1)
recognized and enjoyed that it is the State’s primary responsibility to create conditions favorable
to the realization of the right to development.
The initiative of River Linking Project is aimed to improve the waterways which will benefit a
larger population. The implementation of the project according to the principles of sustainable
development will not violate the rights of the petitioners.
The implementation of the project will improve the quality of life for a larger section of people
and is implemented without disturbing or taking away the rights of the river as well as the
Kaitoon Community. The project is an initiative for greater public good which does not violate
Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence the counsel for Respondent humbly submits that the
petition is not maintainable.

13Juridification of the right to development in India Anna Lena Wolf

14AIR(1997)SC312

8
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

1.3 Petition filed by Shelton under Article 32

The counsel for Respondent humbly submits that the petition filed by Shelton under Art. 32 of
the Constitution is not maintainable. The losses or damages suffered by the petitions are due to
reasons that are not in control of any human agency.

In 2022, the State of Celia witnessed an exceptionally high volume of rainfall during the
monsoon season which resulted in a heavy flood that has affected lakhs of people and caused
widespread destruction. The geographical extend of the disaster made it one of the most
widespread and challenging flood events in the history of State of Celia.15

Act of God defined as circumstances which no human foresight can provide against any of
which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they do
occur, thus the calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences
that result from them. State of Celia had witnessed an exceptionally high volume of rainfall
ever in the history of the state and has resulted in the most widespread and challenging floods.
Such an event can’t be presented or avoided by the foresight of prudence of a man.

In State Of U.P vs Allied Constructions16it was held that

“An act of God describes an event outside of human control or activity, such as a natural
disaster like a flood or an earthquake”.

Neither party shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage occasioned by or arising out of
act of God, such as unprecedented flood, volcanic eruption, earthquake or other convulsion of
nature and other acts such as but not restricted to general strikes, invasion, the act of foreign
countries; hostilities or warlike operations before or after declaration of war.

15. Moot proposition Para 8

16 AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 586, 2003 (7) SCC 396

9
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

In the case of Nichols v. Marshland17 the defendant has a number of artificial lakes on his
land. Extraordinary rain such as had never been witnessed in living memory caused the banks
of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away four bridges belonging to the
plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff's bridges were swept by an act of God and the defendant
was not liable.18
The damages suffered by the plaintiff comes under the purview of Act of God and hence the
fundamental right under Art. 21 of the constitution of Centria is not violated by the River.

1.4 Petition filed by Hestin under Article 32

The counsel for respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Centria that
the writ petition filed by Hestin on behalf of the Senkia River under Art. 32 is not
maintainable. The fundamental rights of the petitioner is not violated by the federal
government.
Centria is a member of the United Nations and has ratified all of the international human
rights treaties adopted by the United Nations. It is also an active member of the International
Labour organization and has ratified the various ILO Conventions19.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats to human rights of our generation, posing a
serious risk to the fundamental rights to life, health food and adequate standard of living of
individuals and communities across the world. The climate crisis is setting back the clock in
human progress. More than 2 billion people live in countries with high exposure to climate
related hazards. Their capacity to recover when disaster strikes is limited.

17
[1](1876) 2 ExD1 ]
18
Jurisprudence, Legal System and Legal history R.K. Bhangia
19
Moot Proposition Para 1

10
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Under International Human rights law, States have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill
human rights of all people. The nation has ratified all international treaties on human rights. The
state have taken adequate steps for the address and mitigate the impact of climate change.
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India 20stands as a reminder that everyone has a role to play in
the fight against climate change.
Hence the counsel for respondent humbly submits before the court that the petiotion filed under
art 32 is not maintainable.

20 Original Application no: 187 of 2017

11
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS ?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Centria that the measures, policies
and project implemented by the respondent were aimed at the development of the nation and
for welfare of the people
The acts of the respondent doesn’t violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

2.1 The Writ petitions filed under Art. 32 of Constitution

2.1.1 The petitions filed by Hestin on behalf of Senkia River
It is humbly submitted that the River Linking Project implemented by the federal government
of Centria aims at connecting water ways of the nation that is for the betterment of public. The
acts of the state are justified under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Senkia River Protection Act was enacted for the welfare of the Senkia River as well as
protecting the interest of the Kaitoon community. The Act was an attempt to bring the
concerns of the river as well as it’s relevant stake holders in a nationalized level. The Centre’s
attention is very much essential for maintaining the sanctity and also to ensure the necessary
developments. Since the river is the longest and has involved economically by a large section
of people it is essential to implement necessary developments as per the principles of
Sustainable development.

There is no violation of fundamental rights of the river and also the Kaitoon community.
The implementation of River Linking Project is to connect the water ways of the nation with a
paradoxical situation of floods in one part of the country and drought in another part. The
interlinking of the rivers is to conserve the water resources which is a part of right to life and
livelihood as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of Centria.
The project will empower the equitable and proper distribution of water for the betterment of a
large number of people. Hence the implementation of the projects uplift the fundamental
rights to life for a large section of people.

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

The word ‘life’ as employed by Article 21 includes the right to work and the right to
livelihood. That Indian citizens shall have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. The
concept of the “Fundamental Right to Livelihood” encapsulates the essence of social justice
and economic empowerment.
In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi21 i it was held by Supreme court that – The
right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than physical
survival.22

In case of Chameli Singh v. State of U.P 23 court held that a Bench of three Judges of
Supreme Court had considered and held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right
available to every citizen and it was read into Article 21 of the Constitution of India as
encompassing within its ambit, the right to shelter to make the right to life more meaningful.
The Court observed that: “Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not mere protection of his
life and limb. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally,
intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe
and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water,
electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his
daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s
head but the right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a
human being.”
The implementation of the project will enforce the right to proper development in the nation
and facilitates the adequate infrastructurual development for a better future.

The Project has been designed by considering the principle of sustainabile development. The
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes that decent work is both a means and
an end to achieve sustainable development and eradicate poverty. Accordingly, the ILO
Decent Work Agenda has a fundamental role to play in mitigating the specific social,
economic and environmental vulnerabilities of indigenous peoples, and tackling their high
levels of poverty.

21 AIR 1981 SC 746

22.ibid(2) pg no: 287 para 1
23.1996 (2) SCC 549

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

The principle of sustainable development has to be adopted as a balancing concept between

ecology and development. The “precautionary principle” and “ polluted pays” principle are
essential features of sustainable development and has to be adopted. 24
The Senkia River Protection Act has been formulated by the Central government to ensure
that the rights of the river are protected and the interest of the Kaitoon community are uplifted.
Hence there is no violation of the fundamental rights in implementing the river linking project.

Hence the counsel for respondent humbly submits that the River Linking Project is
implemented for the “greater public good” and is not violative of thefundamnetal rights of the
petitioners. Since there is no fundamental rights violation it is humbly prayed that mandamus
shall not be issued for the exclusion of Senkia River from the River Linking Project.

2.2 Petition filed by Shelton against Senkia River

It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Senkia that the fundamnetal right to the
petitioner to safe and secure environment is not violated by the acts of the respondent. The
losses or damages suffered by the petitioner is the result of a disaster which is beyond human
control or activity.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies defines the term
disaster as, “A disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of
a community or society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses
that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own resources25.”
In 2022 State of Celia has witnessed an exceptionally high volume of rainfall which had led to
flash floods and overflowing rivers, especially Senkia River exacerbating the severity of the
disaster. The geographical extend of the disaster made it one of the most widespread and
challenging floods in the history of the State.
Hence the flood witnessed by the state was a disaster which was uncontrolled vyany human
activity and will come under the ambit of Act of God.

24. Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v UOI(1996) 5 SCC 647

25.Collins, Andrew E., 2009. Disaster and Development, Routledge, London, U. K., p. 26.

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

In State Of U.P vs Allied Constructions26 it was held that:

“An act of God describes an event outside of human control or activity, such as a natural
disaster like a flood or an earthquake”.

The Senkia River Protection Act identifies the Senkia River as a legal person and has
appointed the Senkia Council as it’s human face. The status acquired by the river shall be
considered only as a minor as the river can’t speak for themselves. When identifying a river as
a legal person who has the rights and duties like a living person it can be only seen as a minor
who needs to be represented by benevolent parents.
The provisions of the Senkia River Protection Act doesn’t extend to the legal responsibility of
the river in the case of natural disasters. In this instant case the submissions of the petitioners
are far away from the ambit of the Senkia River Protection Act.

In the case of Nichols v. Marshland27 the defendant has a number of artificial lakes on his
land. Extraordinary rain such as had never been witnessed in living memory caused the banks
of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away four bridges belonging to the
plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff’s bridges were swept by an act of God and the defendant
was not liable.

In Moh’d Salim v. State of Uttarakhand 28 the court granted legal personhood to the rivers
Ganga and Yamuna and stating that the rivers will have “all corresponding rights, duties and
liabilities of a living person.” The court held that Director NAMAMI George the Chief
Secretary of the state of Uttarakhand to be persons “in locoparentis”, i.e., as persons having
the responsibility to protect conserve and preserve the river.

26. AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 586, 2003 (7) SCC 396
27.[1](1876) 2 EXD1 ]
28.Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

Here the Senkia Council has been appointed as the human face to act as the parents of the
river who is a minor. The Senkia Council is not empowered to be liable for the damages that is
appeared to be caused by a minor person by influence of Act of God.
The petitioners fundamental rights to safe and secure environment under Art. 21 of the
constitution extends only to acts done voluntarily by a person.

Hence the counsel humbly submits that the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 21
of constitution of Centria is not violated.

2.4 Petition filed by Hestin

It is humbly submitted that the petitioners fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution
is not violated by the federal Government.

Principle 10 of Reo Declaration 1992 states that “Environment issues are best handled with
participation of all concerned citizens at the relevant level”.
The State of Centria has ratified all the international human rights treaties adopted by the
United Nations and an active member of the International Labour Organization.
Since the country being an active member and ratified the international treaties the country has
taken all the appropriate climate change actions and implemented policies for taking necessary
steps in climate change.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held on New York, 9 May
1992 was ratified by the country and has adopted all the relevant policies and programs for an
appropriate action.

Article 253 29 of the Constitution of Centria states that

“Legislation for giving effect to international agreements - Notwithstanding any thing in the
foregoing provisions of this Chapter , Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or
any part of the territory of India for implementating any treaty, agreement or convention with
any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference,
association or other body.”

29.Bareact

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

In accordance with the above said article the Centria government has adopted all the the
necessary steps for addressing the impacts of climate change and has taken proper steps to
prevent them.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted
in 1992 with the ultimate aim of preventing dangerous human interference with the climate
system. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris Agreement build on the Convention.

The Paris Agreement was a considerable achievement for the international community. For
the first time, a climate change agreement brought all countries into an ambitious undertaking
to combat climate change by limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius,
and to strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The famous, but unsuccessful case of Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India 30 an applicant
attempted to highlight the link between human rights and climate change. For instance, it
highlighted the adverse health impact of climate change on human beings. It also brought to
the attention of the tribunal that climate change has adverse impact on food and water security
caused by crop failure, ocean acidification, water and soil salinization, and species extinction.
However, this case does not establish a direct link between human rights and climate change.
The tribunal dismissed the petition by observing that it does not have ‘reason to presume that
Paris Agreement and other international protocols are not reflected in the policies of the
Government of India or are not taken into consideration in granting environment clearances.’
This observation suggests that the tribunal dismissed the petition in the absence of scientific
evidence.

The Union of Centria has adopted timely steps to address and mitigate the impact of climate
change. There has been no negligence on the part of Union of Centria in implementing
effective climate policies, preparedness and infrastructural measures. There has been no action
from the part of the Central government that violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

Hence the counsel for respondent humbly submits that the fundamental rights of the
petitioners are not violated by the action of the defendants.

30. Original Application No. 187 of 2017

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
 4th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of the facts adduced, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed and implored the Hon’ble Apex Court
may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1) The petition submitted under Article 131 and Art 32 are not maintainable.
2) The fundamental rights of the petitioners are not violated by the acts of the respondent.
3) To declare that the River Linking Project is not violative of the rights of the Kaitoon
community.

AND/OR

The Court may also be pleased to Pass Any Such Order, Direction or Relief which
this Hon'ble Court May Deem Fit in Order to Uphold the Principles of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, The Respondents Shall Duty Bound Hold Forever Pray.

All Of Which Is Respectfully Affirmed and Submitted.

Respectfully submitted

(S/d)
Counsel for Respondent

X
- WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -