R17

CNLU GENERAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2020

BEFORE,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

SAVE BLUE............................................................................................................... PETITIONER

VS.

UNION OFSINDIA...................................................................................................RESPONDENTS

TO HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SINDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................................V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................................VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................................VIII
ISSUES RAISED....................................................................................................................................XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................................XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................................................1
1. THAT THE PIL FILED BY “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF SUPREME COURT IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE?................................................................................................................................1
1.1 THAT THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE LOCUS STANDI.........................................................1
1.2 THIS HONOURABLE COURT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN INTERFERING WITH A POLICY
DECISION............................................................................................................................................2

1.3 PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.................................................3

2. THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT ENDANGERING
ECOSYSTEM..........................................................................................................................................5
2.1 THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS ADHERED TO IN THE PROJECTS.........5
3. THAT THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD?....8
3.1 THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19............................................................................8
3.2 THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21.............................................................................9
4. THAT THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UOS IS NOT ULTRA VIRES OF THE
PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION............................................................................................11
4.1 THE POLICY DECISION HAS BEEN FRAMED BASED ON THE RULE OF REASON.........................11
4.2 GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO UOS IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
EPA,1986........................................................................................................................................11
4.2.1 THAT THE DISCRETION GIVEN TO GOVERNMENT IS IN PURSUANCE OF PROTECTION OF
ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................................................................11

4.2.2 THE GOVERNMENT WAS EMPOWERED BY THE EPA ACT TO COME OUT WITH COASTAL
REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION..............................................................................................12
4.3 THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE GOVERNMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SINDIAN
CONSTITUTION.................................................................................................................................12
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................................14

WRITTEN
W SUBMISSION
RITTEN S UBMISSIONSOON
NBBEHALF
EHALF O
OF THERRESPONDENTS
F THE ESPONDENTS
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ / Para Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Approx Appropriately

Art. Article

Assn. Association

Commr. Commissioner

CONST. Constitution

CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

ed. Edition

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

HTL High Tide Level

i.e. That is

Jan January

Ltd. Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 LTL Low Tide Level

MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forests

Nov November

Ors. Others

PIL Public Interest Litigation

r/w Read With
Re In the matter of

Regd Registered

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sustainable Development Goals

SDG

Sess. Session

UNDP United Nations Development Programmes

UOI Union of India

UOS Union of Sindia

Vs/ V/ V. Versus

Wp. Writ Petition

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• The Constitution of India, 1950

• The Environment (Protection) Act,1986
• The Environment Protection Rules, 1986
1. CASESA.P.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD V. M.V.Nayudu, A.I.R. 1999 SC 812.........9
2. Abhudhya Sanstha v. UOI, (2011) 6 S.C.C. 145...........................................................3
3. Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. UOI, WP(C) 80 of 2006, 4 July 2011.............2
4. Ameeta Shah v. State of Maharashtra,2003 S.C.C. 377................................................6
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R.1980 SC 898...................................................8
6. Balco Employees' Union (regd) vs. Uoi & ors. A.I.R. 2002 (2) S.C.C. – 333...............2
7. BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. UOI (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333.................................1
8. Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1987 SC 374...........................................9
9. Bodi Alam v. State of Bihar, 1952 A.I.R. 1952 Pat 376................................................8
10. Confederation of All Nagal & State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagal
(2006) 1 S.C.C. 496........................................................................................................4
11. Court on its own motion v. UOI, 2012 (12) SCALE 307..............................................8
12. Court On Its Own Motion v. UOI, 2012 (12) Scale 307................................................9
13. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 S.C.C. 378............................................1
14. Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 S.C.C. 114........................................3
15. Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) A.I.R
1892 of 2007..................................................................................................................2
16. Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) A.I.R
1892 of 2007..................................................................................................................2
17. Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. UOI (1981) 1 S.C.C. 568..........................1
18. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI ,(1996) 5 S.C.C. 281..........................9
19. K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 S.C.C. 481...............................................................3
20. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1963 SC 1295.....................................................8
21. M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388...........................................................9

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 22. M.C.Mehta v. UOI, A.I.R. 1988 SC 1037.....................................................................9
23. Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. UOI & Ors., A.I.R. 2000 (10) S.C.C. – 664................2
24. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI (2000) 10 S.C.C. 664.............................................9
25. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 SC 180..........................10
26. Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689........................................................9
27. Om Kumar v. UOI, A.I.R. 2000 SC 3689......................................................................9
28. R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486..............................................3
29. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, KA.I.R.ana, A.I.R. 1950 SC 163..........................4
30. State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of
2001................................................................................................................................8
31. State of M.P. & Ors. vs. N&lal Jaiswal & Other, (1986) 4 S.C.C. 566.........................2
32. Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 SC 420................................................9
33. Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 S.C.C. 326......................................3
34. T.N. Godavarmanthirumalpad v. UOI & Ors., (2002) 10 S.C.C. 606...........................9
35. T.N.Godavarmanthirumulkpad v. UOI, A.I.R. 1997 SC 1228......................................9
36. The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary A.I.R. 1992 (4) S.C.C. 305.....................................1
37. Thirumalpad v. UOI & Ors. (2002) 10 S.C.C. 606........................................................9
38. Thirumalpad v. UOI & Ors.(2002) 10 S.C.C. 606.........................................................9
39. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. UOI, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647.....................................9
40. Waman Rao v. UOI, (1981) 2 S.C.C. 362......................................................................8

BOOKS REFERRED
 Divan and Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India (2 Ed.)2005
 Dr, Sukanta K. Nanda, Environmental Law (1 Ed. 2007)
 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (14th ed, 2010)

*The laws of Sindia are in pari materia with laws of India.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of Sindia, 1950.

Art. 32 of the Constitution of Sindia reads as:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part: -

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

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)
and(2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause (2).

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

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
IN THE INSTANT CASE.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background: Sindia is the second largest populated country, which gained its independence
in the last century. Due to its marvellous growth, it is the second largest growing country and is
the youngest nation in the world .Sindia as any other developing country has internal issues
like excessive energy shortage. With most literate people, energy and balanced development
became a matter of right determining even the victory in elections. Sindia’s relationship with
the neighbouring countries is up and down. The neighbouring state Swamabhumi signed an
agreement with Mandarina, leasing a port island Mannar, which is alleged to be Military camp.
Sindia has a total coastline of 7300 km approx and large parts of coastal plains are covered by
fertile soil. The coastal region makes Sindia one of the preferred destinations for Beach
tourism. Fishing is an important occupation of the people living in Sindia. Around one-fifth of
the population of the country lives along the coastal regions and there are 3 metropolitan cities
of the country in coastal regions.

Hamantha: Hamantha is a group of 8 islands with South Hamantha being the capital island.
The island has 1 Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha as well as in Lok Sabha. The tourism
industry of Hamantha has the largest tourism potential in Sindia with its distant from Sindia
meaning a great hindrance to that. Tourism in Hamantha is promoted by Sindian Tourism
Ministry (STM), a government of Sindia undertaking. Their primary occupation is tourism and
fishing with little agriculture. The island is backward in terms of communication, internet
facility, excessive power cuts and remoteness being the challenges. The island since 2015
received a lot of tourist as the connectivity was enhanced from 4 major cities through air and
sea. In the recent times there were excessive crocodile movements in the human habitation
area. On 2nd April 2018, an American tourist was killed by the crocodile since then the
government issued order prohibiting swimming and fishing. Since 2010 several aquatic
animals were found dead due to huge plastic deposit.

In 2018 Parliamentary election, the National Democratic Party came to power in the centre and
also in the island. Several development projects have been brought up to enhance speed of
internet, tourism and educations. In January 2019, CRZ duly came into effect. Sindia made a

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

press release as to the aim and purpose of CRZ 2019 to promote sustainable development
based on scientific principles taking into account the dangers of natural hazards, sea level rise
due to global warming.
The following provisions were made pertaining to Hamantha Islands.
Regulation
2.5 - CRZ V-The Hamantha group of islands shall exclusively come under CRZ V from the
date of the 18th January 201 9.
The limit of CRZ in the Zone V shall be 50 metres from the High Tide Line.
5.4.1 - The restrictions and prohibition applied to CRZ I under the CRZ 2019 shall apply to
the CRZ V.
Provided that nothing contained in any law, rule and the CRZ regulation 2019 shall affect
the exclusive power of UOS to limit or impose Prohibition and Regulation to the
said CRZ V including power to modify the CRZ limit and No development Zone limit except
for island in ecologically sensitive zones i.e. Sakura Island in advancement of development
and public interest of the Nation.
Provided all provision in any law contrary to this regulation shall remain inoperative till the
regulation is in operation to the extend needed to accomplish the purpose of the regulation.
Any such laws shall be operative only when the Government of Sindia specifically permits
expressly through order the operation of such laws.
As per the above law several developments took place.
In October 2019 the government launched an ocean power plant which uses sea turbines to
generate power. 10 coastal villages including 2 villages of native tribes were taken up and
given rehabilitation. The government of Sindia in Nov 2019 launched Emerald island project
which stated 2 islands namely Gala and Hatten Island’s No development zone as 10 metre
limit from HTL and bidding were invited for setting resort in the islands. The government also
sanctioned a huge bridge connecting Tara island one of the entry restricted island and Mannar
island.
On Jan 2020 the students association of Hamantha college started a protest and within 3 days
the protest grew into a Public movement wherein lot of people joined the protest in the Capital
city Hamana, which lead to violence especially in the island of Hamantha which is inhabited
by the students largely and the natives.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

SAVE BLUE: SAVE BLUE an organization devoted to research, marine ecosystem
development, coastal and wildlife protection. The protest in Hamana rose asking for revival of
status of CRZ 1 and stating the present provision as threat to life of local people, tribes, flora,
fauna. With the initiation of ocean power project demanding displacement of people the SAVE
BLUE organization having top native people and former Member of Parliament including Mr.
Saarkar of opposition party Union People Party (UPP) as members filed a PIL in the Supreme
Court.

Present Petition The case is tiled against the UOS alleging the special provisions of CRZ as
discriminatory and prejudiced to the interest of its indigenous tribal people, environment
especially the exclusive flora and fauna and citizens for the sake of development and tourism,
where as the Ministry of Environment and Forest of UOS gave a press release stating that aim
of the special provision of CRZ is merely to boost development and connectivity with the
islands on par with environment laws.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 ISSUES RAISED

-I-

WHETHER THE PIL FILED BY “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF SUPREME COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE?

-II-

WHETHER THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ AFFECTS THE ENVIRONMENT ENDANGERING

ECOSYSTEM?

-III-

WHETHER THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD?

-IV-

WHETHER THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UOS IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE
PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether The PIL Filed By “Save Blue” Seeking Interference Of Supreme Court Is
Maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed
before the bench is not maintainable because there has been no violation of fundamental
right in the present case. A petition can be filed under Art. 32 of the constitution only when
the fundamental right is violated. Moreover, the petitioner “Save Blue” does not have
Locus standi. And, the alternative remedy has not been exhausted. Therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable by “Save Blue” seeking interference of Supreme Court.

2. Whether The Project Under CRZ Affects The Environment Endangering

Ecosystem?

It is most humbly submitted that the project under CRZ does not affect the environment
endangering ecosystem. These projects launched are in consonance with the Environment
Protection Act of 1986 as the aim and purpose is to conserve and protect environment and
interest of local communities and to promote sustainable development based on scientific
principles while simultaneously contributing to the economic growth and development of
the country. It is submitted that the projects launched is necessary to solve the challenges
faced by the local communities.

3. WHETHER THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD?
It is most humbly submitted that the CRZ is not contrary to the native tribal people’s
right to livelihood under article 21 of the Constitution since; no special right has been
conferred to the tribal communities. It is further submitted that there has been no restraint
imposed on the indigenous people i.e., against their fundamental rights and the restriction
and prohibition applied by CRZ 2019 is to promote sustainable development based on
scientific principles taking into account the dangers of natural hazards. However right to

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 livelihood is not absolute and is sometimes has to yield to compelling public interest.
Therefore, the CRZ is not contrary to the native tribal people’s right to livelihood.

`4. WHETHER THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UOS IS ULTRA VIRES
OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the CRZ giving excessive
discretion to the UOS is not Ultra vires of the parent law and the constitution. UOS has issued
notification in exercise of the power under section 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment
(Protection) Act,1986 and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 declaring
coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and Regulating Activities in the CRZ and
the power conferred on the government is in accordance with the sindian constitution.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE PIL FILED BY “SAVE BLUE” SEEKING INTERFERENCE OF SUPREME

COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that A Public Interest Litigation
can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, as
guaranteed by part III of the Constitution1
In the present case, the petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the petitioner does
not have locus standi[1.1], this honourable court would not be justified in interfering with a
policy decision [1.2] and Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies [1.3].

1.1 THAT THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE LOCUS STANDI

It is humbly submitted that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of Fundamental
Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 32.2 The petitioner is raising a mere
scholarly objection, without any locus standi. “The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so
as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the
depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal
injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right”3.
In Janta Dal case4 it was pointed out that “Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the
requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity
of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific
remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
Here in the present petition most of the people of nation are literate and the island of
Hamantha was inhabited by students largely5, which defeats the common rule of locus standi
of being the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the
legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl.1 r/w INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl.2.
2
Romesh Thapar v. UOI, A.I.R. 1950 SC 124 (India).
3
Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. UOI (1981) 1 S.C.C. 568 : A.I.R. 1981 SC 344; D.C. Wadhwa (Dr)
v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 S.C.C. 378 & BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. UOI (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333.
4
The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary A.I.R. 1992 (4) S.C.C. 305.
5
¶12, Moot Proposition.
right therefore petitioner SAVE BLUE does not have locus standi to file petition in the
Hon’ble Court.
Moreover, the special provision of the CRZ 2019 aims to promote sustainable development
based on scientific principles taking into account the dangers to natural hazards without
violating any of the fundamental rights. Therefore this petition under the colour of PIL,
brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the
threshold.

1.2 THIS HONOURABLE COURT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN INTERFERING WITH A

POLICY DECISION

It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court has long held that interference into policy
actions is not within the its jurisdiction6 as reiterated in the recent Iodine Salt Case11 7.It has
been held that a writ petition cannot be maintainable if its sole purpose is to question a policy
decision of the Government. Unless there is prima facie evidence to prove that exercise of
discretion has been arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide, the Court cannot step into the shoes
of the Government to decide the validity of a policy.8
In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or
functions. “The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to
uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason
that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not
interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner
the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in
accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law.”
The following observations have been quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Balco employees' union (regd) vs. Union of India and others10 “In respect of public projects
and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval
authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and

6
Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) A.I.R 1892 of 2007.
7
Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. UOI, WP(C) 80 of 2006, 4 July 2011.
8
State of M.P. & Ors. vs. N&lal Jaiswal & Other, (1986) 4 S.C.C. 566.
9
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. UOI & Ors., A.I.R. 2000 (10) S.C.C. – 664.
10
Balco Employees' Union (regd) vs. UoI & ors. A.I.R. 2002 (2) S.C.C. – 333.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small
section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered
policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it
will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which
are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation,
the Court should not refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner
in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite
view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the
Government is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after
considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the
Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.”

In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy.
Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic and
development policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested
interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is
contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered
with by the court.

Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of

dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. Here it is
not so and in the sphere of development policy or reform the court is not the appropriate
forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject- matter of PIL.
Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions
or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these
contingencies arise in this present case. Hence, this Hon’ble court would not be justified in
interfering with a policy decision therefore petition deserves to be dismissed.

1.3 PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

It is humbly submitted that the power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power
vested in the hands on this Hon'ble Court.11 It is a well settled proposition of law that

11
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 S.C.C. 481; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 S.C.C. 114;
Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 S.C.C. 326; R. v. Kensington IT Commissioner, (1917) 1
KB 486; Abhudhya Sanstha v. UOI, (2011) 6 S.C.C. 145.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

existence of an alternative adequate remedy is a factor taken into consideration in a writ
petition.12 In the instant case, the Petitioner has approached the Honourable Apex Court
directly under an Article 32 petition in spite of having an alternative remedy available in
Article 226 of the Constitution.

Article 226 gives the High Court to entertain Writ petition. It is pertinent to point out that
Article 226 has a non-obstante clause with respect to Article 32. Furthermore, the Article 226

empowers the High Courts of relevant jurisdictions to entertain writs as and when requires.
It was held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Confederation of A1l Nagaland State
Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland, 13 that the writ petitions should be agitated
at the first instance before the High Court of Judicature exercise of its power under Article
226 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the organisation SAVE BLUE has directly
approached the Supreme Court, 14 whereas the petitioner should have moved to the High
Court under Article 226. This Hon'ble Court, must therefore, exercise its discretion to quash
the instant writ on grounds of non-maintainability.

12
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, KA.I.R.ana, A.I.R. 1950 SC 163.
13
Confederation of All Nagal & State Services Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagal&, (2006) 1 S.C.C. 496.
14
¶13, Moot Proposition.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2. THAT THE PROJECT UNDER CRZ DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT
ENDANGERING ECOSYSTEM
It is most humbly submitted that the project under CRZ does not affect the environment
Endangering ecosystem. That the Principle of Sustainable Development is adhered to in the
Projects [2.1].

2.1 THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS ADHERED TO IN THE

PROJECTS
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Right to Sustainable Development
is a fundamental right and is to be treated as an integral part of life under article 21. That the
principle of sustainable development has been strictly observed in framing of the policy and
that any of the project under CRZ is not in violation with the parent law.

There are three lines of contention humbly submitted by the respondent in resonance of this
sub issue;

1) That the Ocean Power Project launched under SDG does not impose any threat to the
environment.
2) That connect Sindia Project enhances the speed of internet.
3) That Emerald island project enhances the tourism by providing accommodation.

With regards to the first line of contention, Article 21 is occupies a place of pride in the
Constitution. The article mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law.15

Tidal Power is one of the most infantile and major sources of renewable energy. It is also
known as a green energy source as it emits zero greenhouse gases and it doesn’t take up
much space. This furthers Sindia’s resolution to increase renewable source of energy by 2
percent annually in nations total energy source. 16 The longer lifespan of the ocean power
makes it more cost- competitive in the long run.

15
Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 364 (14th ed, 2010).
16
¶ 2, Moot Proposition.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Furthermore, the second line of contention i.e. the connect Sindia Project enhances the speed
of internet. The respondent submits that under the Connect Sindia Project, developments have
been brought up like Optic Fibre Connection Cable which is much needed as the island is
backward in terms of communication and internet facilities also considering the new colleges
being established which in turn, would increase the student population in the area.17

The third line of contention promoted the tourism as coastal region makes Sindia one of the
most preferred destinations for Beach tourism. Tourism marks approximately 9% of the
nation’s GDP.18 The Emerald Island Project further enhances the tourism potential of Sindia
by proposing to set up resort in the islands.

However, none of the policies under CRZ 2019 violates any rules and regulations listed under
CRZ 2011.
Paragraph 2 of the regulation contains a list of prohibited activities. Amongst the activities
which are prohibited is the setting up of new industries and the expansion of existing
industries, except those directly related to the water front or directly needing foreshore
facilities.19
Paragraph 3 of the Regulation is entitled, "Regulation of Permissible Activities" and it
provides that all other activities, except those prohibited in paragraph 2 will be regulated as
provided therein.20 
Under paragraph 3(3)(i), the Coastal States and Union Territory Administrations had to
prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP) within a period of one year from the date
of the notification identifying and classifying the CRZ areas within their respective territories
in accordance with the guidelines specified in Annexure I and II of the Notification and
obtain approval of the MOEF. All development and activities within the CRZ other than the
prohibited activities specified in paragraph 2 and the activities specified in paragraph 3(2) for
which environmental clearance from the MOEF is required are to be regulated by the State
Governments or the Union Territories or the local authorities, as the case may be, in
accordance with the guidelines contained.21

17
¶ 9, Moot Proposition.
18
¶ 5, Moot Proposition.
19
Ameeta Shah v. State of Maharashtra,2003 S.C.C. 377.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

However it is submitted that as Sindia is a developing country, certain ecological sacrifices
are deemed necessary to ensure the benefit of future generations. This ethical mix is termed
sustainable development.

In the present case enough measures have been taken so as maintain and herald sustainable
development. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent has acted with at most care in the
formulation and the execution of its policies. Therefore, the policies of the government are
based on reason and that reasonable care has been taken so as to pave way for development
and hence does not affect the environment endangering ecosystem.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3. THAT THE CRZ IS CONTRARY TO THE NATIVE TRIBAL PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO
LIVELIHOOD?
It is most humbly submitted that the CRZ is not contrary to the native tribal people’s right
to livelihood since; there is no special right has been conferred to the tribal communities.
That there is no violation of Article 19[3.1], that there is no violation of Article 21[3.2].

3.1 THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19

It is most humbly submitted that Article 19(1)(e) provides the right to reside and settle in
any part of the country; but reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) can be imposed if it is
in public interest22. Therefore, the rights of the indigenous people to reside and settle in the
island is not an absolute right and can be restricted under Article 19(5) if it is in the public
interest.23
It is humbly submitted that there has been no restraint imposed on the native tribal people
which is against their fundamental rights. Prohibition on swimmers and restricting fishing in
areas for local communities is reasonable restraint as due to excessive crocodile movement in
human habitation area 24imposes threat on human life as well as to the species.
Thus, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Court, the provisions of the Bihar Maintenance of Public
Order Act, so far as provisions permit the passing of reasonable restrictions in the interests of
the general public on the exercise of the rights conferred by the clauses (d) and (e) of Art.
19(1) of the Constitution.25
As in regards to the right to practise any profession as guaranteed under the Act. 19(1)(g) the
respondent humbly submits that there is no violation of the said right. The Indigenous people
have guaranteed rights to carry on with any profession of their choice. Every citizen has a
right to carry out any lawful calling business or profession he may choose subject only to
such restrictions as are imposed.26 In instant case no such restrictions have been imposed on
the indigenous tribal communities. Therefore, the indigenous people' right to livelihood, has
not been violated.

22
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Civil Appeal Nos. 104-105 Of 2001.
23
Court on its own motion v. UOI, 2012 (12) SCALE 307; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1963 SC 1295;
Waman Rao v. UOI, (1981) 2 S.C.C. 362; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R.1980 SC 898.
24
¶ 8, Moot Proposition.
25
Bodi Alam v. State of Bihar, 1952 A.I.R. 1952 Pat 376.
26
Dent v. West Virginia, 32 L. ed. 623; Quong Wing v. Kirkendel, 56 L. ed. 350.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3.2 THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there has been no violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be
reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental right and restriction imposed
thereon.27
In the present case the UOS was facing excessive energy shortage. Excessive power crises,
backward in terms of communication, internet facility and remoteness are challenges to
Hamantha island which in many ways chopped economic growth and development in the
country.
The onerous duty lies upon the State under the concept of 'sustainable development' 28
recognized as a fundamental right under Article 2129 to keep in mind the "principle of
proportionality"30 so as to ensure protection of environment on the one hand31 and to
undertake necessary development measures on the other hand32, since, the economic
development cannot be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology but the necessity to
preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments 33,
which includes generation of revenue and public interest.
Hence, despite the fact that life of the indigenous people is dependent on fishing and tourism,
the Government not only has to consider the necessity to preserve the ecology, but also has to
consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the people.
Therefore, it was a duty of the State to provide people with accommodation and basic
standard of living guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution which has been performed
by providing rehabilitation.
Therefore, the fact that evacuating native tribes whose primary occupation is fishing cannot
be considered to be violation of Article 21 as it is the duty of the government to provide the

27
Om Kumar v. UOI, A.I.R. 2000 SC 3689.
28
Brutl & Commission Report, 1983; Principle 2 of Stockhom Conference,1973; Principle 1 of Rio
Declaration,1992.
29
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI ,(1996) 5 S.C.C. 281; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v.
UOI, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647.
30
Thirumalpad v. UOI & Ors.(2002) 10 S.C.C. 606; M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath, [1997] 1 S.C.C. 388.
31
Court On Its Own Motion v. UOI, 2012 (12) Scale 307.
32
Thirumalpad v. UOI & Ors. (2002) 10 S.C.C. 606; Subhash Kumar v. State Of Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 SC 420;
M.C.Mehta v. UOI, A.I.R. 1988 SC 1037; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI (2000) 10 S.C.C. 664;
A.P.Pollution Control Board v. M.V.Nayudu, A.I.R. 1999 SC 812; T.N.Godavarmanthirumulkpad v. UOI,
A.I.R. 1997 SC 1228.
33
Banwaslseva Ashram v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1987 SC 374; T.N. Godavarmanthirumalpad v. UOI & Ors.,
(2002) 10 S.C.C. 606.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

people of the country with necessary conditions for leading a peaceful life as promised by the
Constitution under Art. 21.34 shelter of the Indigenous people and generates revenue and
electricity which will further provide aid to the government in countering the present energy
crisis. Also, the fact that primary occupation of native tribes of two villages in Sabath island
is fishing35 would not lead to violation of their right as the soil of coastal plains is fertile 36 so
they can indulge in agriculture for their livelihood. And for shelter, rehabilitation has been
provided by the government which shows that the Government had indeed taken into account
the needs and rights of the indigenous population and thus, it cannot be said that the
Government violated the same. Therefore, the government has struck a balance to protect the
fundamental right of all the citizens including indigenous population, so it cannot be
considered that there is violation of Article 21 especially the right to life of indigenous
people, since; the action of the government is guided by public interest. Hence Article 21 has
not been violated.

34
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, A.I.R. 1986 SC 180.
35
¶ 12, Moot Proposition.
36
¶ 4, Moot Proposition.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. THAT THE CRZ GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO THE UOS IS NOT ULTRA VIRES

OF THE PARENT LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that giving discretion to the UOS is not Ultra
vires of the parent i.e. The Environment Protection Act , 1986 since, the Policy Decision Has
Been Framed Based On the Rule of Reason [4.1] Giving excessive discretion to UOS is in
consonance with the provisions of EPA,1986[4.2]; the power conferred on the government is
in accordance with the Sindian Constitution [4.3]

4.1 THE POLICY DECISION HAS BEEN FRAMED BASED ON THE RULE OF REASON
It is humbly submitted that the CRZ giving discretion to the UOS is based on strict reason.
The court observed that under the EPA the government is the custodian of clean environment
and that its power under section 5 was coupled with a duty to exercise the power whenever
the need arose. Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 of the EPA
empowers the Central Government, in exercise of its powers and performance of functions
under the Act, to issue directions to any person, officer or authority and such person, officer
or authority are bound to comply with such directions.

4.2 GIVING EXCESSIVE DISCRETION TO UOS IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF

EPA,1986.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that UOS has issued notification in exercise
of the power under section 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 and
Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) and Regulating Activities in the CRZ.

4.2.1 THAT THE DISCRETION GIVEN TO GOVERNMENT IS IN PURSUANCE OF PROTECTION

OF ENVIRONMENT

It is humbly submitted that the Government of India came out with a Coastal Zone
Notification by the virtue of powers conferred on it by the EPA Act, 1986 itself. It can take
all measures that are necessary and expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the
quality of environment.37

37
Dr, Sukanta K. Nanda, Environmental Law 193 (1 Ed. 2007).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

In the instant case, the UOS takes into account the dangers of natural hazards and issued
restricting orders in the interest of the environment and the public at large. The Stockholm
conference for human environment also endorsed the need for intensified action at the
national, regional and international level in order to limit and where possible, eliminate the
impairment of the human environment and to protect and improve the natural surroundings in
the interest of man.38
EPA,1986 is an enabling law, which articulates the essential legislative policy on
environmental protection and delegates wider powers to the executive to enable bureaucrats
to frame necessary rules and regulations.39
The scope of the Act40 is very broad as it is the legislation that has taken into consideration
into its ambit the problem of environment as a whole.
Section 3(1)(v)41 states that, “ restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or
processes or class of industries or operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be
carried out subject to certain safeguards and,
3(1)(xiv) 42states that, “ such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary or
expedient for the purpose of securing the effective implementation of provisions of the Act.

4.2.2 THE GOVERNMENT WAS EMPOWERED BY THE EPA ACT TO COME OUT WITH

COASTAL REGULATION ZONE NOTIFICATION

It is humbly submitted that EPA,1986 is an enabling law, which articulates the essential
legislative policy on environmental protection and delegates wider powers to the executive to
enable bureaucrats to frame necessary rules and regulations.43

4.3 THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE GOVERNMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

SINDIAN CONSTITUTION
It is humbly submitted that the EPA,1986 which gives discretion to the government is
enacted in furtherance of the fundamental duties which imposes duty on every citizen to
protect the environment. Article 51-A (g), says that “It shall be duty of every citizen of India

38
Environmental Law 372 (1 Dr, Sukanta K. Nanda Ed. 2007).
39
Divan and Rosencranz Environmental Law and Policy in India (2 Ed.)2005.
40
Environment (Protection) Act,1986.
41
Environment (Protection) Act,1986,Section 3(1)(V).
42
Environment (Protection) Act,1986,Section 3(1)(xiv).
43
2 Divan and Rosencranz Environmental Law and Policy in India Ed.2005.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life
and to have compassion for living creatures.”44

According to Article 48-A45, “ the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”

The respondent humbly submits that since time immemorial Necessary steps are required to
be taken to arrest this grave danger. Government needs to be able exercise its powers for
taking or modifying decisions as it deems fit in the larger interest of the people and future
generations.

Therefore, the CRZ giving excessive discretion to the UOS is not Ultra vires of the parent
law and the constitution and hence its validity cannot be questioned.

44
INDIA CONST. art. 51, cl.A(g)
45
INDIA CONST. art. 48, cl.A

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the arguments advanced and authorities citied, the Respondents
humbly submit that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. the PIL filed by “Save Blue” seeking interference of Supreme Court is not
maintainable.

2. the project under CRZ does not affect the environment endangering ecosystem.

3. the CRZ is not contrary to the native tribal people’s right to livelihood.

4. the CRZ giving excessive discretion to the UOS is not Ultra vires of the parent law
and the Constitution
AND

That the court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

For this act, the Respondents shall be duty bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

S/D-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS