S,S, JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONST. OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF: -

NHRC .......................................................................................................................PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF LEYON................................................................................... RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

DRAWN & FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 3-5

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 6-7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................... 9

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 11-12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12-27

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE ?

2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC

PROJECT WITHOUT A PROPER EIA VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS?

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE,

PRIOR, & INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE INDI TRIBE BEFORE
APPROVING THE PROJECT?

4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT

& THE BAN ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A
SCHEDULED TRIBE UNDER THE CONST. & SCHEDULE V?

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 31

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
❖
CASES REFERRED

▪
Supreme Court Cases
1. Maneka G&hi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
2. Vikram Dhillon v State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0513/2007
3. Sheela Basse v State of Maharashtra , (1983) 25CC 96 AIR 1983 SC 378
4. M C Metha V UOI AIR 1997 SC734.
5. B&hu Mukti Morcha v UOI AIR 1984 SC 811
6. Villianus Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v UOI (2009) 7 SCC561 : (2009) 8JT 339.
7. Bodhisattan v Subhra Chakrabarthy , AIR 1999 SC 922
8. Kumar P.N v Municipal Coprn Delhi (1987) 45CC 609;
9. Knnubai Brahm Bhatt v State of Gujarat , AIR 1987 SC 1159
10. Registered society v UOI AIR 1999 SC 3020
11. State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476
12. Mohammed Ishaq V Kazam Pasha, AIR 2009 SC Supp 1610
13. Ch&ra Kumar v UOI (1997) 3 SCC 261
14. Ramach& v UOI (1994) 1 SCC 44
15. Janata Dal v H.S Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892, 1993 CriLJ 600, 1992
16. M/s. J. Mohapatra& Co. v. Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572, 1574 : (1984) 4 SCC 108
17. S.P. Gupta v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87
18. Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 : AIR 2007 SC 1812
19. Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36 at 38
20. DevDutt v. UOI, (2008) 8 SCC 725
21. Narmada Bachao &olan v. UOI & Ors Writ Petition (Civil) 328 of 2002
22. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI SCC 647, 1996 AIR 2715, JT 1996, 375
23. vendira venkata reddy v. UOI 1985 SCC (3) 198
24. m.c. mehta v. UOI 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965
25. Chameli Singh vs. State of UP, (1996) 2 SCC 549 (India)
26. L.K. Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
27. M.C. Mehta vs. UOI (UOI) & Ors. (05.04.2002 - SC): MANU/SC/1430/2002
28. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors. (18.04.2013 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0396/2013
29. Lavasa Corporation Ltd. v. UOI
30. Him Privesh Environment Protection Society & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
(04.05.2012 - HPHC) : MANU/HP/0687/2012
31. M.C. Mehta vs. UOI (UOI) & Ors. 1987
32. N&ini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh”WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 250 OF 2007
33. Damyanti v. UOI AIR 1971 SC 966: (1971) 3 SCR 840: 1971 UJ (SC) 409
34. “Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, UOI & OtherIN RE (2012) 5 SCC 1
35. Anita Thakur & Ors. V. Govt. of J&K & Ors.MANU/SCOR/56614/2014
36. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors AIR 2017 SC 1079
37. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors AIR 2017 SC 1079
38. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 884
39. Redaul Hussain Khan v. National Investigation Agency 2010 1 SCC 521
40. State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle 2009 11 SCC 541
 4

▪
MUNICIPAL STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Const. of India, 1950.

2. The National Green Tribunal Act 2010
3. The L& acquisition act of 1986
4. The Inter-State Water Dispute Act
5. The Environment Protection Act 1986
6. The National Environment Policy
7. The Forest Rights Act, 2006
8. The Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act
9. The LARR Act, 2013
10. The RFCTLARR Act
11. The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act
12. The Scheduled castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

▪ INTERNATIONAL STAUTES

1. Un Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples

2. The Rio Declaration On Environment & Development
3. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention
4. World Bank

❖
BOOKS REFERRED

❖ J.N. P&ey, Const. of India, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, Fifty Fifth
ed.(2018).
❖ Prof. M.P. Jain, Indian Const.al Law, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa
Publication, Nagpur, Sixth ed. (2011).
❖ V.N. Shukla, Const. of India, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, Eleventh
ed.(2008).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 5
❖ WEB SITES REFERRED
1. Advocatekhoj.com
2. Casemine.com
3. Constiutionofindia.net
4. Indiankanoon.org
5. Latestlaws.com
6. Lawctopus.com
7. Legalservicesindia.com
8. Legislative.gov.in
9. Lexisnexis.com
10. Manupatra.in
11. Scconline.com
12. www.undp.org.in
13. www.uncsd2012.org
14. www.environmental-mainstreaming.org

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

AIR AIR

Anr. Anr.

Art. Art.

& &

Const. Const.

HC HC

Hon’ble Hon’ble

No. No.

Ors. Ors.

p.no. Page No.

SC SC

SCC SC Cases

Sec. Sec.

UOI UOI

v. Versus

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 7

PIL PIL

NHRC NHRC

EIA EIA

EC EC

UNDRIP UNDRIP

FRA FRA

Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in L&

Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,
LARR 2013

Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in L&

Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,
RFCTLARR 2013.

SCST SCST act

EPA EPA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1
The Hon’ble SC of India has jurisdiction to hear the Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Const. of
India.

The Petitioner most humbly submits before the Jurisdiction of the present court & accepts that it
has power & authority to preside over the present case.

1.

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, m&amus, prohibition, quo warranto & 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 SC by clause ( 1 ) & ( 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 SC under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this Art. shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
this Const.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Indus is a district in the state of Leyon, India, inhabited by the Indi tribe since
ancient times. The Indi people have a distinctive way of life & culture, often
perceived as "primitive" by general st&ards. They have resided in the area for
generations, maintaining their unique traditions & customs.
2. Little is known about the culture of the Indi tribe, who are listed in the Indian
Const.'s V Schedule as Scheduled Tribes. Members of the Indi tribe experience
low levels of integration with society, which breeds mistrust, alienation, &
economic & social exploitation.
3. A proposed hydroelectric project in the Indus district in 2020 threatened the Indi
tribe since it would flood around 80% of their inhabited territory. The Indi tribe
voiced serious objections to the project, citing worries about being uprooted
from their primary source of food & income. Their identity would be
profoundly impacted & the foundations of their culture would be endangered by
the planned submergence.
4. A large chunk of the Indi tribe's inhabited l& would be submerged as a result of
the proposed hydropower project in the Indus District, endangering several
important natural locations that are essential to their cultural & spiritual
activities. The people's strong opposition to the idea is exacerbated by this new
dimension.
5. The Indi people objected to the government approving a project, arguing that
they had not been given the opportunity to freely, prior to, & inform themselves,
in violation of both domestic & international legal requirements.
6. The government increased police presence in the Indus area as a result of
nonviolent protests led by citizen groups like Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti.
7. The ISS Secretary, Mr. Mukesh, obtained public backing for the organization's
initiative & then solicited public funding via financial request letters.
8. Following an investigation of Mr. Mukesh's home & workplace by the
authorities, which turned up unaccounted money & letters requesting donations,
the International Skill Development Society (ISS) was deemed to be an
unlawful organization.
9. The ISS filed a complaint alleging flagrant violations of human rights by the
State Government with the NHRC (NHRC).
10. Because of worries that funds that were not declared were being used to finance
opposition parties, the government of State LEYON has decided not to lift the
embargo on the International Space Station (ISS). A costly stop has been
avoided by the hydroelectric project, a flagship project that is vital to the area &
has previously undergone rehabilitation.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 10
ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE ?

2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WITHOUT A PROPER EIA VIOLATES
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE,

PRIOR, & INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE INDI TRIBE BEFORE
APPROVING THE PROJECT?

4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT

& THE BAN ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A
SCHEDULED TRIBE UNDER THE CONST. & SCHEDULE V.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS

MAINTAINABLE?

The writ petition is maintainable as the state of Leyon has allegedly violated the
Const.al rights of the Indi tribe. It further violates the legal as well as fundamental
rights of the Indi people. The SC of India is appropriate forum for adjudicating
this matter for the protection & enforcement of these rights. Keeping in mind the
significance of Art. 32 & the interest of public welfare, the petitioner argues upon
different provisions & case laws for the petition to be help maintainable.

2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WITHOUT A PROPER EIA VIOLATES
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
The counsel submits that the government's approval clearly violates the
environmental laws as it is a m&atory requirement under Environment Protection
Act & the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2020. The cousel
hereby has mentioned the importance of EIA by highlighting the provisions,
procedures & case laws that supported the importance of the same. It is observed
in the various cases that environmental laws are given a higher status than any
project & thus the counsel requests the apex court to consider the major need of
an EIA before approving or initialising any project.
3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE,
PRIOR & INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE INDI TRIBE BEFORE
APPROVING THE PROJECT?

The counsel humble submits to the apex court that no free, prior or informed
consent was taken by the government before proceeding with the project & that it
do violates the national & international laws & guidelines related to the protection
of indigenous & tribal people. The counsel had mentioned the definition of free,
prior & informed consent & also the cases which underline the importance of
obtaining such a consent before approving any project along with the relevant case
laws. The Const. of India specifically talks about the consent of tribal people in
such matters which is also mentioned below. The counsel hence requests the SC to
consider this issue & stop the project.

4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS INCLUDING THE PROJECT & THE BAN ON
ISS VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A SCHEDULE TRIBE UNDER THE
CONST. & SCHEDULE V?

The counsel humbly submits before the honorable SC that the government did not follow the due
process before imposing the ban & the ban on ISS is a violation of the Const.al Rights of the
members of ISS as well as the Indi tribe. The importance of various Const.al provisions read with
Schedule V of the Indian Const. clearly indicates that the ban was inappropriate & the government
should feel the need to consider its decision again. The counsel requests the SC to remove the ban
on ISS & keep the project at hold.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 13

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?

1.1. The writ petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent is maintainable before the SC of India as the
state of Leyon has allegedly violated the Const.al rights of the Indi tribe, leading to a collective grievance & failure
of public duty, thereby warranting the Court's intervention in this PIL.

[A]. Further, the violation of such obligation would infringe the legal as well as fundamental right of the Petitioner ,
establishing a direct nexus between the alleged transgressions by the state of Leyon & the Const.al rights of the Indi
tribe.

[B] Given the gravity of the issues & the collective nature of the grievances, the SC of India remains the appropriate
forum for adjudicating this matter, aligning with the principles of PIL & the broader Const.al concerns raised by the
Petitioner.

The alleged violations by the state of Leyon directly impact the fundamental rights of the Indi tribe. Art. 32, being a
fundamental right, empowers the petitioner to approach the SC directly for the protection & enforcement of these
rights. The grievances raised are not isolated but represent a collective concern of the Indi tribe, making it a matter
of public interest. Art. 32, when coupled with public interest, allows the court to intervene for the larger welfare of
society.

Maneka G&hi v. UOI1 In this l&mark case, the SC exp&ed the scope of Art. 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty)
& emphasized the significance of Art. 32. The court declared that the right to move the SC for the enforcement of
fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right.

The significant aspect of Indian Const. is the jurisdiction it confers on the SC to issue writs under Art. 322 .The sole

1
AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
2
Art. 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The
right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part
is guaranteed (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, m&amus, prohibition, quo warranto & 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 ) & ( 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 Art. shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 14
object of Art. 32 is enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Const..3

Underlying the significance of Art. 32 the SC has characterized the jurisdiction conferred on it by Art. 32 as an
important & integral part of the basic structure of the Const. because it is meaningless to confer fundamental rights
without providing an effective remedy for their enforcement, if & when they are violated.

In Vikram Dhillon v State of Haryana5 the fundamental Right to move this court can-therefore be appropriately
described as the cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the Const.. It is natural that this court should regard
itself as protector & guarantor of fundamental rights & refuse to entertain application seeking protection against
infringement of such rights. The court has to pray the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ & it must always regard it
us its solemnly duty to protect the Fundamental Right ‘Zealously & Vigilantly’

The technique of PIL serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce group rights & interest.6

Where a person or class of person to whom legal injury is caused by reason of violation of a fundamental Right is
unable to approach the court for judicial redress on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically
disadvantage position any member of public acting bonafide can move to the court for relief under Art. 327.

Any member of 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 Const. or the law & seek enforcement of such
public duty & observance of such Const.al or legal provision.8

In the current scenario, the State of Leyon's approval of the hydroelectric project poses a direct threat to the
livelihoods of members of the Indi tribe, who rely extensively on the affected area for their daily needs, including
drinking water, irrigation, sanitation, & other domestic purposes. The petition, led by NHRC on behalf of the Indi
tribe, contends that the state's actions violate the fundamental rights & cultural identity of the tribe. By moving this
PIL under Art. 32, the petitioners seek immediate redress from the SC, arguing that the unique circumstances of a
tribal community facing displacement necessitate direct intervention to safeguard their Const.al rights. The
petitioners assert that alternative remedies are impractical in the urgency of the situation, justifying the
maintainability of their plea before the SC.

In Common Cause, a Registered society v UOI9 . The SC opined that “ Aricle 32 provides a guaranteed , quick &
summary remedy for enforcing the fundamental Right because a person can go straight to the SC without having to
undergo dilatory process of proceeding from the lower court to the HC as he has to do in after ordinary litigation”

The SC cannot refuse on application under Art. 32 merely on the following grounds:

3
Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Collector , AIR 1980 SC 112, See also Prem Chang Garg v. Excise Comm.UP , AIR 1963 SC996

5
MANU/SC/0513/2007
6
Sheela Basse v State of Maharashtra , (1983) 25CC 96 AIR 1983 SC 378: M C Metha V Union Of India AIR 1997 SC734.
7
B&hu Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 811
8
Villianus Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v Union of India (2009) 7 SCC561 : (2009) 8JT 339.
9
AIR 1999 SC 3020, Bodhisattan v Subhra Chakrabarthy , AIR 1999 SC 922
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 15
• That such application has been made to the SC in the first instance without resort to HC under Art. 22610

• That there is some alternative remedy available 11

The existence of an adequate alternative relief is not a bar to the invocation of the SC’s jurisdiction under Art. 32.
When a relief a sort in case of an infringement of a Fundamental Right.12

The respondent curtailed the fundamental rights of the petition guaranteed under the Const. of India. Being
aggrieved by the impugned Act the petitioner has the very right to seek relief under Art. 32 of the Const. as there
has been infringement of fundamental rights; alternative remedy is in no way debarring from approaching the SC.

In Janata Dal v H.S Chowdhary.13 It was opined that:“The SC has to innovate new methods & device new
strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice who are denied their basic human rights & to whom freedom
& liberty have no meaning. The only way this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions.”

In the instant case, the very fact that the petitioner is in a grievous situation that the said project curtails the right to
water that is their basic fundamental right has been violated. This empowers them to approach the SC & the court to
grant relief through allowing the petition.

The SC is the greatest authority to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizen & also to see that justice being
given to the needy.

It is humbly submitted that the SC is the most appropriate forum as

Firstly, the Petitioners have the locus st&i to file the petition. The law with respect to locus st&i has considerably
advanced.14 Whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public
authority which is contrary to the Const. or the law any member of the public acting bona fide & having sufficient
interest can maintain an action for redressal of such wrong or public injury.15

Secondly, A HC can issue a writ if the cause of action either wholly or partly arises within the HC’s territorial
jurisdiction.16 Cause of action implies a right to sue.17 Cause of action can be interpreted to mean every fact which
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the
Court.18 Even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would
have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.19

Thirdly, the Petitioners contend that the place of effect is not a material fact. In the case of Central Bank of India

10
Kumar P.N v Municipal Coprn Delhi (1987) 45CC 609; Knnubai Brahm Bhatt v State of Gujarat , AIR 1987 SC 1159
11
State of W.B v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights AIR 2010 SC 1476 : Mohammed Ishaq V Kazam Pasha, AIR
2009 SC Supp 1610
12
Ch&ra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261; Ramach& v Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44
13
AIR 1993 SC 892, 1993 CriLJ 600, 1992
14
M/s. J. Mohapatra& Co. v. Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572, 1574 : (1984) 4 SCC 108
15
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87
16
Art. 226 (2) of The Constitution of India, 1950
17
MP JAIN,INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,429 (6th ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010)
18
Id.,
19
Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 : AIR 2007 SC 1812
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 16
Ltd. v. Ram Narain,20the court supported the active nationality principle of jurisdiction, i.e., regardless of the place
of the wrong, a State may exercise its civil & criminal jurisdiction over its nationals – legal & natural, based on the
concept of allegiance. The court opined in this case that the jurisdiction of an offence cannot be lost by reason of the
venue of the offence.21 Thus, it is contended that the scope of Art. 21 even extends to the environment of leyon &
livelihood of people of leyon for the reason that the cause of the degradation of environment & loss of livelihood is
due to the actions of government of the State of Leyon.

It is humbly submitted that while interpreting legal provisions a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard
realities of life.22 The approach of the court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic,
realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal & practical rather than precedential. 23

Hence, it is humbly submitted before this honorable Court that the writ petition filed under Art. 32 is maintainable.

20
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36 at 38
21
Id., 38-39
22
DevDutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725
23
Id.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 17
2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT WITHOUT A PROPER EIA VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
1. The counsel humbly submits to the Hon’ble SC that the government's approval of the
hydroelectric project without a proper EIA violates environmental laws
As for the construction of hydroelectric project the state is required to conduct a proper EIA
which is a m&atory requirement under Environment Protection Act 24 & the environment impact
assessment notification of 202025.
EIA
2. It was held by the apex court about the EIA in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs
Ministry Of Environment & Forest26 that “proceeding with construction activity for expansion
project without obtaining EC as per provisions of EIA Notification 2006 that amounts to
violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986”
In the Narmada Bachao &olan v. UOI27 case, the Hon'ble SC held that: "The obligation to
conduct a comprehensive EIA is an indispensable step in ensuring the sustainable development
of projects with potential environmental impacts. This principle is echoed in our environmental
laws, & the failure to abide by it raises serious legal concerns."
Similarly in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI 28 the SC held that EIAs are crucial for
development projects. The absence of a proper EIA was deemed a violation of the right to a
healthy environment.
The petitioner asserts that the Respondent's approval of the hydro-electric project without a
proper EIA contravenes established legal norms & jeopardizes the ecological balance of the
Indus district.
The proposed hydro-electric project, by potentially causing environmental harm through the
submergence of ecologically sensitive areas, challenges the State's Const.al obligation under Art.
48-A29
3. Sec. 2 of the EIA notification of 200630 clearly states the requirements of prior EC (EC):- The
hydroelectric projects or activities shall require prior EC from the concerned regulatory
authority.
Whereas, a draft notification of EIA of 2006, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986 for imposing certain restrictions & prohibitions on new projects or
activities, or activities based on their potential environmental impacts as indicated in the
Schedule to the notification, being undertaken in any part of India, unless prior EC has been
accorded in accordance with the objectives of National Environment Policy31 & the procedure
specified in the notification, by the Central Government or the State or Union territory Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), to be constituted by the Central
Government in consultation.
Sec. 7 states the Stages in the Prior EC (EC) Process for New Projects:- The EC process for new

24
Environment Protection Act 198624
25
environment impact assessment notification of 2006
26
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors. (18.04.2013 - SC) : MANU/SC/0396/2013
27
Narmada Bachao &olan v. Union Of India & Ors Writ Petition (Civil) 328 of 2002
28
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India SCC 647, 1996 AIR 2715, JT 1996, 375
29
Art. 48-A The State shall endeavor to protect & improve the environment & to safeguard the forests & wildlife of the country.
30
environmental impact assessment notification 2020.
31
vendira venkata reddy v. union of india 1985 SCC (3) 198
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 18
projects will comprise of a maximum of four stages. These four stages in sequential order are:
• Stage (1) Screening
• Stage (2) Scoping
• Stage (3) Public Consultation
• Stage (4) Appraisal
In Vendira venkata reddy v. Union of India32, it has been held that EC is m&atory,
procedure under notification 24 April 1994 must be followed. Only on such clearance by the
impact assessment committee of the central government, the project of construction of dam by
the state government can be started.
The government has not followed these above mentioned steps properly & granting the project
will have an adverse impact on the environment
Here also government had started the project without the proper EC from any competent
authority.
4. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE
In a l&mark case of M.C. Mehta v. UOI33 the SC held that
"The right to life is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Const. & it includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution-free water & air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or
impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Art.
3234 of the Const. for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the
quality of life."
The construction of the hydroelectric project will create pollution as well. Construction of this
may have a large environmental impact as it can alter aquatic habitat, flood previously dry areas,
may require the expropriation of l&, leading to the relocation of local communities, changes in
water quality, etc.
Similarly in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P35. The SC unequivocally asserted in its verdict that
“Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live, should be deemed to
have been guaranteed as a fundamental right under the ambit of Art. 21.”
Also right to life includes right to have a clean environment36 & state is under a
consitutional duty to protect the environment37.
So the council contends that the approval of hydroelectric project violates the Art. 21 of Const.
of India, as the state gave the approval without properly conducting EIA.
5. The petitioner also contends that the hydro-electric project's approval without a proper EIA
violates Sec. 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This Sec. empowers the central
government to ensure environmental safeguards, including m&atory assessments for projects
with potential environmental impact. The petitioner urges the court to intervene, asserting that
the project's continuation without compliance jeopardizes environmental protection m&ated by
the law.

32
vendira venkata reddy v. union of india 1985 SCC (3) 198
33
m.c. mehta v. union of india 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965
34
supra
35
Chameli Singhvs. Stateof UP, (1996) 2 SCC549(India)
36
L.K. Koolwal vs. Stateof Rajasthan&Ors.
37
M.C. Mehta vs. Unionof India (UOI) &Ors. (05.04.2002 - SC): MANU/SC/1430/2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 19
6. Art. 48 A38 of Const. of India states the Protection & improvement of environment &
safeguarding of forests & wild life. The State shall endeavour to protect & improve the
environment & to safeguard the forests & wild life of the country

Art. 4939 Protection of monuments & places & objects of national importance It shall be the
obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic
interests, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from
spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.

7. According to the Sec. 3(f)(i) of the L& Acquisition Act, 1894- The “public purpose” includes the
planned development or improvement of existing village-sites. As a violation of this clause, the
government, by approving the construction of project, is giving affirmations against the natural
sites of the indi tribe to be destructed.
40
Lavasa Corporation Ltd. v. UOI case pertains to the Lavasa hill station project & emphasizes
the need for compliance with environmental regulations, including the submission of a
comprehensive EIA report, before allowing large-scale development projects.

Although the preliminary survey was carried out yet the authorities had not submitted any report.
Neither the government acknowledged the responsibility to ask for the report. The very fact that,
was the survey conducted fulfilled the requirements related to the environmental safety or not, is
still questionable.
41
8. Point 1.5 of National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy says Where large No.s of families
are affected, it must be m&atory to do impact assessments & provide all required infrastructural
facilities & amenities in that area. More particularly, where the Scheduled Tribes people are
being displaced in sizeable No.s, a well thought out Tribal Development Plan must be put in
place.

It was held in Him Privesh Environment Protection Society & Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh
& Ors.42 that the cement plant has been set up in total violation of the Environment Laws
especially the Environment Impact Assessment notifications of 1994 & 2006. It is also alleged

38
Protection & improvement of environment & safeguarding of forests & wild life The State shall endeavour to protect &
improve the environment & to safeguard the forests & wild life of the country
39
Protection of monuments & places & objects of national importance It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every
monument or place or object of artistic or historic interests, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national
importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be
40
WRIT PETITION NO 1968 OF 2021
41
national rehabilitation & resettlement policy2007
42
Him Privesh Environment Protection Society & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (04.05.2012 - HPHC) :
MANU/HP/0687/2012
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 20
that no proper public hearing was conducted & that the village common l& has been wrongly
transferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh .

Similarly in M.C. Mehta vs. UOI (UOI) & Ors. 43 Court has observed that no mining activity can
be carried out without remedial measures taking place & for this purpose, it is necessary that
environment impact assessment is done & the applications dealt with before any mining activity
can be permitted.

Also in D. Swamy Vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Ors. court concluded that ex
post facto ECs (EC) were acceptable & stressed the importance of EIA.

9. Commencing of hydroelectric project without conducting proper violated the Art. 29 [1]44 & Art.
32[3]45 of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples46 Indigenous peoples have the
right to the conservation & protection of the environment & the productive capacity of their l&s
or territories & resources. States shall establish & implement assistance programmes for
indigenous peoples for such conservation & protection, without discrimination.

Art. 32 States shall provide effective mechanisms for just & fair redress for any such activities,
& 24 appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social,
cultural or spiritual impact.

10. INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS

PRINCIPLE 1747 of THE RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

state that EIA, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely

to have a significant adverse impact on the environment & are subject to a decision of a

competent national authority.

48
World bank also Provides guidelines for environmental assessments & recommends that the

43
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. 1987
44
Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation & protection of the environment & the productive capacity of
their l&s or territories & resources. States shall establish & implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples
for such conservation & protection, without discrimination.
45
States shall provide effective mechanisms for just & fair redress for any such activities, & 24 appropriate measures shall be
taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
46
Adopted in 2007
47
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have
a significant adverse impact on the environment & are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.
48
www. worldbank.org
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 21
big projects including the hydroelectric project should undergone through the process of proper

EIA process.

The European Union (EU) m&ates an EIA (EIA) process for certain projects, including
hydroelectric projects. The EIA process is governed by European Union (EU) EIA Directive
2011/92/EU, which outlines the assessment of the effects of certain public & private projects on
the environment.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 22
3. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED THE NECESSARY FREE, PRIOR,
& INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE INDI TRIBE BEFORE APPROVING THE
PROJECT
The counsel humbly submits to the Hon’ble SC that the State government has not Obtain free,
prior & informed consent of the Indi tribe before proceeding with the project in view of the
national & international laws & guidelines relating to the protection of indigenous & tribal
people.
The notification of EIA 49 itself says that it requires prior EC for projects affecting the
environment, & compliance involves obtaining free, prior, & informed consent from affected
communities.
The state has violated Art. 19[a]50 [b]51 , & Art. 2152 & Art. 29[1]53 of the Const. of India. Free &
informed consent is crucial for activities that may affect these rights. & the state has not done
this on his own part.
Also Art. 48A54 states about the Protection & Improvement of Environment & Safeguarding of
Forests & Wildlife – The State shall endeavor to protect & improve the environment & safeguard
forests & wildlife. Free consent ensures the active participation of communities in environmental
protection.
Art. 24455 of the Const. of India provides for the administration of Scheduled Areas & Scheduled
Tribes, & Schedule V outlines the provisions related to the administration & control of
Scheduled Areas. & it lays down the provisions related to the protection of the rights of the
indigenous people.
Also FRA, 56 recognizes & vests forest rights & occupation in forest l& in forest-dwelling
Scheduled Tribes & other traditional forest dwellers, emphasizing their consent for such rights.
A 3 judges’ bench of SC in Orissa Mining Corporation Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest
&Ors. 57, held that approval cannot be granted for a development project without the informed
consent of the gram sabha & the people who resides there.
The Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act58
(FRA in short), in Sec. 4(5) states that save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest
dwelling Scheduled Tribes or Other Traditional Forest Dweller shall be evicted or removed from
the Forest L& under his occupation till the recognition & verification procedure is complete.

Under Sec. 5 of FRA59, Gram Sabha is, inter-alia, empowered to ensure the decision taken in
Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest resources & stop any activity which

49
environmental impact assessment notification 2020
50
supra
51
supra
52
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law
53
Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of
its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
54
Supra
55
The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration & control of the Scheduled Areas & Scheduled Tribes
in any State other than the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura & Mizoram. (2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall
apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura & Mizoram.
56
Forest Rights Act 2006
57
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors. (18.04.2013 - SC) : MANU/SC/0396/2013
58
The Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act2006
59
The Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act2006
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 23
adversely affects the wild animals, forest & the biodiversity are complied with.
LARR Act60 addresses the acquisition of l& for public & private purposes, requiring the
informed consent of affected families, including tribal communities. According to Sec. 2 ,The
government must first obtain the consent of at least 80% of the project’s affected families
through an informed process. In the case of a public-private project, at least 70% of the affected
families must also consent to the acquisition process.
As per Sec. 41(3) of RFCTLARR Act61, in case of acquisition or alternation of any l& in
Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha or the Panchayats or the
autonomous District Councils, at the appropriate level in Scheduled Areas under the Fifth
Schedule to the Const.
The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act62, also provides that the Gram Sabha or the
Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be consulted before making the acquisition of l& in the
Scheduled Areas or development projects & before resettling or rehabilitating persons affected
by such projects in the Scheduled Areas, the actual planning & implementation of the projects in
the Scheduled Areas shall be coordinated at the State Level. PESA act 63 provides for self-
governance through traditional Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas & emphasizes the need for free
& informed consent of the community for various activities. & also Right to m&atory
consultation in l& acquisition, resettlement & rehabilitation of displaced persons.
Const.al provision under Schedule-V also provide for safeguards against displacement of tribal
population because of l& acquisition etc. The Governor of the State which has scheduled Areas
is empowered to prohibit or restrict transfer of l& from tribals & regulate he allotment of l& to
members of the Scheduled Tribes in such cases. L& being a State subject, various provisions of
rehabilitation & resettlement as per the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are implemented by the
concerned State Governments.
FRA, 2006 64recognizes & vests forest rights & occupation in forest l& in forest-dwelling
Scheduled Tribes & other traditional forest dwellers, emphasizing their consent for such rights.

SCST act65 has been introduced to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against

60
2.The provisions of this Act relating to l& acquisition, consent, compensation, rehabilitation & resettlement, shall also
apply, when the appropriate Government acquires l& for the following purposes, namely:— (a) for public private partnership
projects, where the ownership of the l& continues to vest with the Government, for public purpose as defined in sub-section
(1); (b) for private companies for public purpose, as defined in sub-section (1): Provided that in the case of acquisition for— (i)
private companies, the prior consent of at least eighty per cent, of those affected families, as defined in sub-clauses (i) & (v) of
clause (c) of section 3; & (ii) public private partnership projects, the prior consent of at least seventy per cent. of those
affected families, as defined in sub-clauses (i) & (v) of clause (c) of section 3, shall be obtained through a process as may be
prescribed by the appropriate Government: Provided further that the process of obtaining the consent shall be carried out
along with the Social Impact Assessment study referred to in section 4: Provided also that no l& shall be transferred by way of
acquisition, in the Scheduled Areas in contravention of any law (including any order or judgment of a court which has become
final) relating to l& transfer, prevailing in such Scheduled Areas.
61
Section 41[3] In case of acquisition or alienation of any l& in the Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram
Sabha or the Panchayats or the autonomous District Councils, at the appropriate level in Scheduled Areas under the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution, as the case may be, shall be obtained, in all cases of l& acquisition in such areas, including
acquisition in case of urgency, before issue of a notification under this Act, or any other Central Act or a State Act for the time
being in force
62
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 or PESA
63
Right to m&atory consultation in l& acquisition, resettlement & rehabilitation of displaced persons.
64
Section 4{e}
65
The Scheduled castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 24
members of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for the trial of such
offences & for the relief of rehabilitation of the victims of such offences for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. Wrongfully dispossessing members of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes from their l& or premises or interfering with the enjoyment of their rights,
including forest rights, over any l& or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroying the
crops or taking away the produce there from amount to offence of atrocities & are subject to
punishment under the said Act.
The FPIC process allows indigenous peoples to exercise control & management of their
resources, l&, territories & respect to their cultural integrity & self-determination, especially on
their own development as distinct peoples. Any external entity such as governments,
corporations, institutions, organizations, & project proponents need to obtain their consent,
agreement & authorization as rights holders before implementing any projects or activities that
have impacts on them.66
FPIC is not merely a procedural process but a substantive mechanism to ensure the respect of
indigenous peoples' right to take decisions, especially in relation to the use, management &
development of their l&s, territories67
International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention (No.107)on Indigenous & Tribal
Populations Convention, 1957 The convention is for the protection of social, political & cultural
rights of Indigenous Peoples. The convention stated that populations concerned shall not be
removed without their free consent from their habitual territories International Labour
Organization (ILO) Convention (No.169) on Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 ILO
Convention 169 stresses the fact that Indigenous Peoples shouldn't be removed from their l& &
territories arbitrarily. Relocation of these peoples is considered, if necessary, as an exceptional
measure, which shall take place only with their Free, Prior & Informed Consent. Where their
consent cannot be obtained, such relocation shall take place only following appropriate
procedures established by national laws & regulations, including public inquiries, where
appropriate, which provide the opportunity for effective representation of the peoples concerned
in the processes & procedures.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007 UNDRIP is
an important st&ard for the treatment of Indigenous Peoples & a significant tool towards
eliminating human rights violations against Indigenous Peoples & assisting them in combating
discrimination & marginalization.
In context of UNDRIP, the following Art. have been violated by the government
Art. 10 Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their l&s or territories. No
relocation shall take place without the free, prior & informed consent of the indigenous peoples
concerned & after agreement on just & fair compensation &, where possible, with the option of
return.
Art. 19 States shall consult & cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned
through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior & informed
consent before adopting & implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect
them.
Art. 28 [1] Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution
or, when this is not possible, just, fair & equitable compensation, for the l&s, territories &
resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, & which have
66
Action india,in
67
Action inida,in
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 25
been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior & informed consent.
The declaration also establishes that Indigenous Peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their
l&s or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior & informed consent of the
Indigenous Peoples concerned & are reaching an agreement on just & fair compensation &,
where possible, with the option of return.
Hence, it is submitted to the Hon’ble SC that government has not taken the free prior & informed
consent of the indi tribe people.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 26
4. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PROJECT & THE BAN
ON ISS, VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDI TRIBE AS A SCHEDULED TRIBE
UNDER THE CONST. & SCHEDULE V?

The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC that the government did not follow due process before
imposing the ban. The ban on ISS is a violation of Const.al Rights of the members of ISS as well as the
Indi tribe.
The very act of imposing ban violates the rights under Art. 19 (1)(c)68 of the Const. of India, which
provided the freedom to form associations which includes the right to form companies, societies,
partnerships, trade union & political parties.

As stated under Art. 21 of the Const. of India: Right to Life & Personal Liberty – “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Schedule V of the Const. of India: Provisions as to the Administration & Control of Scheduled Areas
& Scheduled Tribes.

Art. 19(1)(b) guarantees to the citizen of India the Right to assemble peaceably & without arms i.e.
Right to Protest but this right is also not absolute & reasonable restriction can be imposed on this
right in the interest of Public order, & sovereignty & integrity of India & this power is given to the
state through Art. 19(3)69
By imposing ban on the ISS, the government seized the above mentioned rights, provided by the
Const. of India, to all the citizens of India, including the members of ISS & the Indi tribe. It further
violates the right to peaceful protest.

The government’s action of declaring ISS illegal without proper legal justification infringes upon the
democratic principles enshrined in the Const..
Moreover, the ban violates the protective provisions of Schedule V70, which safeguards the interests
of Scheduled Tribes. The ISS, being an organization advocating for the rights of the Indi tribe, plays
a crucial role in protecting the cultural identity & livelihood of the tribe.

In the case of “N&ini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh”71 the SC emphasized on the importance of
protecting the rights of backward classes & schedule tribes, ensuring their equitable participation in
public services.

The government’s directions against the ISS results in the breach of the rule established in the above
mentioned case.
The NHRC contends that lifting the ban on ISS is essential to uphold the Const.al rights of freedom
of association & expression. The ban not only stifles the voice of the Indi tribe but also undermines
the democratic fabric of the nation. The State government’s allegation of supporting an underground
organization lacks substantial evidence & appears to be a pretext to suppress dissent.

Also, the ban on ISS is discriminatory as it singles out a specific organization without valid grounds.
68
(c) to form associations or unions
69
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent
the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty & integrity of India or public order, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
70
Schedule-V of The Indian Constitution 1950
71 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 250 OF 2007

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 27
Art. 14 guarantees equality before the law & equal protection of the laws, & any arbitrary action
against the ISS undermines this Const.al principle.
Art. 19(1)(a)72 Freedom of Speech & expression – The ban on ISS restricts the freedom of speech &
expression which is a fundamental right. ISS serves as a platform for the Indi tribe to voice their
concerns & opinions, & stifling the organization infringes upon the basic democratic right.
International conventions & obligations
The ban on ISS is in violation of international conventions & obligations concerning the rights of
indigenous & tribal communities. India, being a signatory to various international agreements, has a
duty to protect & promote the rights of such communities, including their right to form associations
for the protection of their interests.

Proportionality Principle
The principle of proportionality requires that any restriction on fundamental rights must be
proportionate to the goal sought to be achieved. Banning ISS, without concrete evidence of
involvement in illegal activities, may be seen as an excessive measure disproportionate to the
government’s concerns.

Prejudgment without due process

The ban on ISS seems to be based on the alleged unaccounted money found in Mr. Mukesh’s
possession. However, this may be seen as a prejudgment without allowing for a proper legal process
to determine the legitimacy of the funds & the organization’s activities.

Preservation of cultural Heritage

ISS plays a crucial role in preserving the cultural heritage of the Indi tribe. By banning ISS, the
government may inadvertently contribute to the erosion of the tribe’s cultural identity, which is
protected under the Const. & international conventions.

Role of Civil Society Organizations

The ban sets a dangerous precedent by discouraging the activities of civil society organizations
working for the rights of marginalized communities. Upholding the ban may create a chilling effect
on other organizations engaged in similar advocacy work, hindering the broader cause of social
justice & human rights.

In Damyanti v. UOI 197173 The SC held The right to form an association, the Court
said: Necessarily ‘implies that the person forming the association has also the right to continue to be
associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law by which
members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members
to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined
it, will be a law violating the right to form an association

Recognition Of Protest As A Fundamental Right

In “Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, UOI & Other74 the SC had ruled that: “Citizens
have a fundamental right to assembly & peaceful protest that cannot be taken away by an arbitrary
executive or legislative action”.

72
(a) to freedom of speech & expression
73
AIR 1971 SC 966: (1971) 3 SCR 840: 1971 UJ (SC) 409
74
IN RE (2012) 5 SCC 1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 28
The SC in “Anita Thakur & Ors. V. Govt. of J&K & Ors.75, has held that holding a peaceful
demonstration in order to air their grievances & to see that their voice is heard in the relevant
quarters is the right of the people.

In “Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors.76, the Hon’ble SC observed that undoubtedly right of
people to hold peaceful protests & demonstrations, etc., is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.
19(1)(a)77 & Art. 19(1)(b)78.

In “Mazdoor kisan Shakti Sangathan v. UOI79, while reiterating that right to protest is one of the
fundamental rights, the SC inter alia, observed that the same, “is crucial in a vibrant democracy like
India but more so in the Indian context to aid in the assertion of the rights of the marginalized &
poorly represented minorities”.

In “Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra80, it was observed that the right of citizens to take out
processions or hold public meeting flows from the right in Art. 19(1)(b).

As regards the allegation that the respondent belongs to PFI, it is true that it has been held in Redaul
Hussain Khan v. National Investigation Agency81 that merely because an organization has not been
declared as an “unlawful association” it cannot be said that the said organization could not have indulged
in terrorist activities. However, in our opinion the said decision is distinguishable as in that case the
accused was sending money to an extremist organization for purchasing arms & ammunition. That is not
the allegation in the present case. The decision in State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram
Bhurle82 is also distinguishable because good reasons have been given in the present case by the HC for
granting bail to the respondent. In the present case there is no evidence as yet to prove that PFI is a
terrorist organization, & hence the respondent cannot be penalised merely for belonging to PFI. Moreover,
even assuming that PFI is an illegal organization, we have yet to consider whether all members of the
organization can be automatically held to be guilty.

75
MANU/SCOR/56614/2014
76
AIR 2017 SC 1079
77
supra
78
supra
79
AIR 2018SC3476
80 AIR 1961 SC 884
81
Redaul Hussain Khan v. National Investigation Agency 2010 1 SCC 521
82
2009 11 SCC 541
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 29

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised herein above, arguments advanced & authorities relied upon, the
counsel for the PETITIONER humbly pray before this Hon’ble SUPREME COURT to kindly
adjudge & be pleased to declare &/or issue:

A. The Writ Petition Filed under Art. 32 of the Const. of India is maintainable.

B. The Government's Approval Of The Hydroelectric Project Without A Proper Eia Violates
Environmental Laws
C. The government did not obtained the necessary free, prior, & informed consent from the
Indi tribe before approving the project
D. The government's action, including the project & the ban on ISS, violate the rights of the
Indi tribe as a Scheduled Tribe under the Const. & Schedule V.

& pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit

in the best interests of Justice, Equity & Good Conscience for this act of kindness,

the Petitioner shall duty bound forever Pray.

All of which respect is submitted counsels for the Petitioner.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER