Before

THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF CITY OF INDIVA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 1990

IN THE MATTER OF
ALERT INDIVA …….…………………………………………PETTITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF BRAHMA………………………………..…………RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY CONSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

JANVI H. BHADESHIYA
ROLL NO – 06
DIVISON - A
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 5

ISSUES RAISED ......................................................................................................................6

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN PUBLIC INTEREST

AND THEREFORE MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION?

2. WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM THE

AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS
TO VIOLATION OF ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?

3. WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE GRANTED

BY THE STATE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIVA?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 8

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 15

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

• & : And

• ¶ : Paragraph

• Anr. : Another

• App. : Application

• Art. : Article

• Co. : Company

• Hon’ble : Honorable

• HC : High Court

• Ltd. : Limited

• Ors. : Others
• PIL : Public Interest Litigation
• PM : Prime Minister

• Pvt. : Private

• SC : Supreme Court

• Sec. : Section

• S.C.C. : Supreme Court Cases

• S.C.R. : Supreme Court Review

• H.C.C. : High Court Cases

• H.C.R. : High Court Review

• U.O.I. : Union of India

• Vol. : Volume

• v/vs : Versus

• WP : Writ Petition

• W.L.R. : Weekly Law Reports

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

1. Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India (2000)

2. M.C. Mehta Vs. Unicon of India (1987)
3. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India
4. In Re: Subansiri Lower Hydorelectric Project (2019)
5. Nagrajv Vs. union of India (1993)

STATUTES, LEGISLATION & INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1. Environment Protection Act 1986

2. Water Prevention and control of pollution Act 1974
3. Wildlife Protection Act 1972
4. Forest Conservation Act 1980
5. The Indian Forest Act 1927
6. The Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act in 2013

BOOKS

1. Constitution of India
2. Udai Raj Rai, Constitutional Law-I(1st ED.2016

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for The Petitioner, Alert Indiva Hereby Humbly Submit to This Hon’ble Court’s
Jurisdiction Under Article – 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Present memorandum set forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the state of Brahma, Indiva, a severe water scarcity has prompted the government to
construct a dam in the district of Ompuri to address drought conditions and support agricultural
and industrial needs. The dam’s construction is set to affect ten adjoining villages, potentially
displacing farmers and submerging their agricultural lands. Reliable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Has
been awarded the contract for this project and obtained environmental clearance from the
Ministry of Environment and Forests after and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

However, the NGO “Alert Indiva” has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arguing that the
environmental clearance is filed and that the dam’s construction violates the farmers right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The NGO also contends
that the project would disrupt environmental balance, thus impaction both ecological and
human livelihoods.

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE:01

Whether The Writ Petition Has Been Filed In Public Interest And Therefore Maintainable As
A Public Interest Litigation?

ISSUE:02

Whether The Displacement Of The Agriculturists From The Area Where The Proposed Dam Is
To Be Constructed Amounts To Violation Of Art.21 Of The Constitution Of Indiva?

ISSUE:03

Whether The Environment Clearance Certificate Granted By The State Is Contrary To The
Provisions Of Constitution Of Indiva?

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE:01 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN PUBLIC

INTEREST AND THEREFORE MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that the WP is maintainable on the grounds
that it involves a general question of public importance and violation of fundamental rights, as
well as legal rights which comes under the ambit of the jurisdiction invoked.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM

THE AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS
TO VIOLATION OF ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?

The agriculturists displacement can be argued to violate their right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This includes their right to livelihood, which can
be impacted if their agricultural lands are submerged or waterlogged due to the dam.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE

GRANTED BY THE STATE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?

The environment clearance certificate is challenged on the grounds that it violates Article 21
by displacing farmers without adequate compensation, potentially causes significant
environmental harm, and may have been issued without proper consideration of these impacts.

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE:01 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN PUBLIC

INTEREST AND THEREFORE MAINTAINABLE AS A PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION?

It is humbly submitted that the WP has been filed before the HC by way of a PIL under Art.
226 of the Constitution of Indiva. It is humbly submitted that the same is maintainable as
Alert Indiva has locus standi and there involves a question of general public interest and
also violation of fundamental rights.

ALERT INDIVA HAS LOCUS STANDI

"Alert Indiva," as an NGO working for environmental protection and public welfare, has
the standing to file the PIL on behalf of the affected communities and the environment, given
its involvement and expertise in relevant issues.

1.PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING

Nature of Public Interest: Alert Indiva's petition addresses critical issues that affect the broader
public, including environmental sustainability and the fundamental rights of displaced
agriculturists. The petition seeks to safeguard the rights of a vulnerable segment of the
population (agriculturists) and ensure environmental compliance, which are in the public
interest.

Legal Precedents: In PIL jurisprudence, the standing of the petitioner is broader compared to
private litigation. The Supreme Court of Indiva (or equivalent) has recognized that PILs can be
filed by individuals or organizations acting in the public interest, especially when it concerns
environmental protection or human rights. The organization’s focus on environmental issues
and the welfare of displaced individuals fits within this framework.

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

2.VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Article 21 of the Constitution: The petition argues that the construction of the dam will infringe
upon the right to life and personal liberty of the affected agriculturists as guaranteed by Article
21. The displacement of individuals and loss of livelihood directly impacts their right to lead a
dignified life, thus making this a significant constitutional issue that warrants judicial review.

Procedural Due Process: The petition can argue that the procedural safeguards required by law
for such large-scale projects have not been adequately met. This includes a thorough and
transparent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the provision of adequate
compensation and resettlement options. A failure to adhere to these procedural requirements
affects the rights of the individuals and thus falls within the ambit of PIL.

3.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND COMPLIANCE

Inadequate Environmental Impact Assessment: The petition can assert that the Environmental
Clearance Certificate (ECC) was granted without a comprehensive and transparent EIA. Alert
Indiva can argue that the EIA was either flawed or incomplete, failing to address the full range
of potential environmental impacts of the dam.

Sustainable Development: The petition can emphasize the need for sustainable development
practices that balance environmental protection with developmental goals. The argument is that
the state’s focus on immediate benefits of water storage should not come at the expense of long-
term environmental and social sustainability.

4.INADEQUATE REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION

Lack of Adequate Compensation: The petition can argue that the government has not provided
adequate compensation or resettlement plans for the displaced agriculturists. This includes not
only financial compensation but also provisions for maintaining their livelihood and ensuring
that their new settlements have access to necessary resources.

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

Violation of Human Rights: By failing to provide adequate rehabilitation measures, the
government is infringing upon the fundamental rights of the affected individuals. PILs are
particularly suited to addressing such issues where individuals are unable to seek redress due
to a lack of resources or information.

5. LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND JUDICIAL APPROACH

Judicial Precedents: Cite relevant judicial precedents where PILs were entertained due to
significant environmental impacts and human rights violations. Courts have historically taken
a proactive role in addressing issues where public interest is at stake, particularly in cases
involving large-scale development projects with potential adverse effects.

Public Duty: Argue that Alert Indiva, as an NGO, is fulfilling its public duty by bringing these
issues to court. The organization’s role in advocating for environmental protection and the
rights of marginalized communities aligns with the objectives of PILs.

6.CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT

Urgency and Necessity: Emphasize the urgency of addressing these issues to prevent
irreparable harm to the environment and affected individuals. The petition seeks to ensure that
the government adheres to legal and ethical standards in its development projects.

Prayers for Relief: The petition should seek relief that includes a review of the environmental
clearance process, ensuring proper compensation and rehabilitation for displaced individuals,
and potentially halting the dam’s construction until these issues are resolved.

By presenting these arguments, Alert Indiva can robustly justify the maintainability of the writ
petition as a PIL, highlighting its role in safeguarding environmental and constitutional rights
and ensuring that public interest is protected.

10

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM
THE AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED DAM IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AMOUNTS
TO VIOLATION OF ART.21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?

1. RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AND PERSONAL LIBERTY:

Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiva guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
which includes the right to livelihood. For the agriculturists in Ompuri, farming is not just
a means of earning income but a way of life deeply connected to their identity and
community. Displacing them from their land where they have practiced agriculture for
generations threatens their ability to sustain themselves and their families. The Supreme
Court of Indiva has consistently interpreted Article 21 broadly to protect livelihoods and
ensure that development projects do not disproportionately impact the fundamental rights
of vulnerable communities.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT:

While the government argues that dam construction is necessary to address water
scarcity, "Alert Indiva" contends that the environmental and social costs have not been
adequately considered. The proposed dam in Ompuri will submerge agricultural lands and
disrupt ecosystems, leading to loss of biodiversity and potentially harming the local
environment upon which the villagers depend. This imbalance between purported benefits and
actual costs violates principles of sustainable development and environmental justice.

2. INADEQUATE COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION:

The compensation and rehabilitation offered to the affected agriculturists are insufficient to
mitigate the profound disruptions caused by displacement. The Supreme Court has emphasized
that compensation must not only cover economic losses but also ensure that affected
communities can rebuild their lives with dignity. "Alert Indiva" argues that the current
proposals fail to meet these standards, thereby violating the constitutional mandate to protect
the livelihood and well-being of all citizens.

11

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

3. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS:

The decision-making process leading to environmental clearance lacked transparency and

meaningful consultation with the affected communities. The right to participate in decision-
making processes affecting one’s life and environment is intrinsic to Article 21. "Alert Indiva"
asserts that procedural deficiencies in the clearance process render the decision arbitrary and
unconstitutional, as they prevent the villagers from voicing their concerns and seeking redress
for potential harms.

4. PRECEDENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY:

Citing precedents, "Alert Indiva" argues that the courts have a constitutional duty to ensure
that government actions uphold fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood and
environmental protection. Past judgments have upheld the rights of marginalized communities
against similar threats posed by development projects. The petitioner seeks judicial intervention
to enforce these precedents and safeguard the rights and interests of the agriculturists in
Ompuri, consistent with the spirit and letter of the Constitution of Indiva.

12

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE
GRANTED BY THE STATE IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA?

DUTY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT:

Indiva’s Constitution says the government must protect and improve the environment.
This duty is tied to everyone’s right to live in a clean and healthy environment, as guaranteed
by the Constitution. Any clearance given for projects like dams must follow strict rules to make
sure it doesn’t harm the environment.

FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL RULES:

Before granting a clearance, the government must study how the project will affect the
environment. This includes looking at potential harms and finding ways to reduce them. If the
clearance doesn’t follow these rules properly, it could be seen as not meeting the constitutional
duty to protect the environment.

BALANCING DEVELOPMENT AND NATURE:

While projects like dams can be good for things like water supply and the economy, they
also need to balance with protecting nature. Courts have stepped in when clearances put too
much focus on development without considering how it might harm the environment. They
look for a fair balance that benefits development while still taking care of nature.

13

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

COURT CHECKS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

Judges have a job to make sure government decisions, like granting clearances, follow the
Constitution. They check if the process was fair, if the studies were done right, and if the public
had a say. If a clearance goes against these rights, the court might say it’s not valid under the
Constitution.

OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY:

It’s important that decisions about clearances are open and fair. This means the public
should know what’s going on, have a chance to share their thoughts, and see that the rules are
followed. If decisions aren’t clear or fair, it could mean the clearance doesn’t meet the
constitutional standards for protecting the environment and people’s rights.

14

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner

 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts used, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this hon'ble court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that –

1. Cancel the Environmental Clearance that was given to Reliable Industries Pvt. Ltd. for
building the dam in the State of Brahma. We believe that the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) was not done properly and missed important environmental issues.

2. Order a New Environmental Review by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. This review
should carefully look at all environmental concerns, including the effects on nature and local
wildlife.

3. Direct the Government of Brahma to assess how the dam will affect the livelihoods of the
farmers who will lose their land. They should also create a fair plan to compensate and help
these farmers.

4. Declare that building the dam without properly addressing its environmental and social
impacts goes against Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiva, which protects the right to life
and livelihood.

5. Require the Government to Talk with Affected Communities to address their concerns and
ensure their rights are protected throughout the project.

6. Grant any other relief that the court thinks is right and necessary to ensure justice and protect
the environment and people's rights.

We respectfully ask the court to consider these requests and take appropriate action.

And to pass any order or relief in the favour of the Petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the larger interest of Justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSEL SHALL REMAIN DUTY BOUND.

Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

15

Memorandum on behalf of Petitioner