1

TEAM CODE: __

ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS ROHTAK, LESBAY

FIR NO ______ 2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

State of ABC…….……...……………………………..……….………………….Petitioner

v.

Akash And Harish………….……………………………………………...…..….Defendent

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................2

ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................................3

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

Cases......................................................................................................................................4

WEBSITES REFFERED.......................................................................................................5

BOOKS..................................................................................................................................5

Statues Referred.....................................................................................................................5

................................................................................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACT...........................................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................12

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................23

2
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

ABBREVIATIONS

Art Article

Corp Corporation

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FA Forest Act 2006

FEC Final Environmental Clearence

HC High Court

Ltd Limited

NGT National Green Tribunal

PESA The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled

Areas) Act 1996
SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec Section

SCR Supreme Court Report

TOR Terms Of Reference

V Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

CASES

1. M.C. Mehta v Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 395 …………………………………………11

2. Niyamgiri Judgement (2013) 12 SCC 795…………………………………………………

11

3. Ramlila Maidan Incident [2012] 5 SCC 1; (2012) AIR SCW

3660……………………….12

4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248 …………………………………….12

5. Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, ss 4(l), 4(i) ………………………13

6. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act 2006, referring to sections 3(i) and 3(k)
…………………………………………………13

7. Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] 8 SCC 191……………………………………

13

8. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985] 3 SCC 545…………………………

13

9. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [1996] 5 SCC

647……………………...13

10. MP High Court Advocates Bar Association v Union of India [2018] 8 SCC
369………...13

11. L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India [1997] 3 SCC

261………………………………….13

12. Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC

1……………………..14

13. State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh [1958] SCR 595……………………………14

14. S.P. Gupta v Union of India [1981] Supp SCC 87………………………………………15.

15. Mineral Development Ltd v State of Bihar [1960] 2 SCR

609…………………………...17

16. A.K. Kraipak v Union of India [1969] 2 SCC 262

……………………………………….17

17. M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath [1997] 1 SCC 388. ………………………………………….17

4
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

18. Orissa Mining Corporation v Ministry of Environment & Forest [2006] 6 SCC
407……...19

19. M.C. Mehta v Union of India [1997] 1 SCC 388…………………………………………

19

20. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v Union of India [2001] 2 SCC 203. PG
17……………….19

21.Vedanta Resources Plc v Union of India [2012] 6 SCC

773……………………………….20

22. Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India [2000] 10 SCC 664………………………..20

23. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India [2002] 10 SCC 606……………………

20

24. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India [2004] 3 SCC 433…………………
21

25. Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan v Union of India [2011] 6 SCC
469…………….21

26. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra [2010] 3 SCC
414……………….21

27. Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India [2011] 7 SCC
338…………………..22

28. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
(CA)………………………………………………………………………………………..2

WEBSITES REFFERED

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/

2. https://www.livelaw.in/

3. https://indiankanoon.org/

4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/

5. https://main.sci.gov.in/

6. https://legal-wires.com/

7. https://theleaflet.in/

8. https://environmentclearance.nic.in/

5
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

9. Environment Clearance-EIA Notification 2006 – Environmental law and policies

(inflibnet.ac.in)

10. National Green Tribunal

BOOKS

1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,

2010)

2. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,

2010)
3. Environmental Law in India by Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, 3rd Edition,
Oxford University Press, 2021.
4. Principles of Environmental Law by P. Leelakrishnan, 4th Edition, Eastern Book
Company, 2019.
5. Environmental Law and Policy in India by Armin Rosencranz, Shyam Divan, and
Martha L. Noble, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2001.

STATUES REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
4. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
5. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006
6. The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996

6
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with
Section 209

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction where it was committed.’

Read with Section 209:

‘ 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it-
When in a

case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the

Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court
of

7
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

Session, he shall-

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody

during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which

are to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session

STATEMENT OF FACT

1. Aarohi, a twenty-year-old girl, belonging to a lower middle-class family, was

pursuing her studies in Chartered Accountancy in the City of Leebay. Her father used
to work as a clerk in a private firm and her mother was a housewife. She had always
been a very bright and ambitious student. To support her father, she used to take
tuitions for school students.
2. Akshay, her Accounts teacher, secretly developed emotions for Aarohi. She had great
admiration and respect for Akshay as her teacher. On Aarohi's birthday, Akshay
organized a party, when he gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware of his feelings,
Aarohi accepted the same.
3. On 11th January,2020 Akshay approached Aarohi's parents and asked for her hand in
marriage. However, they rejected the offer and warned him not to contact her
henceforth, as they did not approve of him since he was her teacher. They warned
Aarohi not to meet Akshay.
4. Thereafter, she started avoiding Akshay. On one occasion Aarohi also made it clear to
Akshay that she will not go against her parents" wishes and asked him not to follow
her anymore. Despite the warning, Akshay continued to follow her and tried to

8
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

contact her personally, through the phone and the internet. He believed that Aarohi
was avoiding him because she was pressurized into doing so. Aarohi reported the
same to her parents.
5. Her parents gave an ultimatum to Akshay that if he continued to repeat the
unwarranted acts committed by him then they would be forced to take stern action
against him. But, despite the warnings, Akshay continued to harass her and her
parents by continuously asking their daughter's hand in marriage.
6. Enraged with the feeling of constant rejection, Akshay went to Harish and confided in
him the entire situation that transpired between him and Aarohi's parents. Harish,
aged 52, had always treated Akshay as his son, ever since Akshay's parents died in a
car accident in 2010.
7. After Harish heard the entire situation he could visualize the extent of attachment that
Akshay had for Aarohi and felt that he was depressed. So, he suggested that he should
find Aarohi alone and take her to the temple and marry her without informing
Aarohi's parents. If Aarohi resisted from getting married to Akshay, Harish would
threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurize her to get married to Akshay.
8. Akshay, who was reluctant initially, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm
will be caused to Aarohi and the bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten
her for compliance to their wishes.
9. On 3rd April,2020 as per the plan, Akshay and Harish found Aarohi walking alone on
the road. On seeing her alone, they decided to get out of their car. Akshay approached
her and asked her to accompany him to the temple so that they could get married. On
Aarohi's resistance, Harish decided to threaten her with the bottle of acid. Akshay
started dragging her towards their car. When Aarohi started screaming for help, in the
moment of panic, Akshay opened the bottle and threw the acid on her face.
10. Harish and Akshay ran away from the scene in their car and left Aarohi writhing in
immense pain. She was taken to the hospital by some passerby. The doctors
immediately conducted the surgeries on her as the injuries were severe in nature. A
First Information Report was lodged and the statement of Aarohi was recorded

9
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1. Whether the accused can be held liable for section 354 IPC?

ISSUE 2. Whether the Accused can be held liable for section 326A IPC?

ISSUE 3. Whether Akshay Mehra’s and Harish’s plan to forcibly marry Aarohi
constitutes criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC?

ISSUE 4. Whether the absence of any premeditated intent to cause physical harm on the
part of Akshay Mehra and Harish can reduce their culpability for the crimes committed
against Aarohi?

10
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

CHARGES FRAMED

Charges Against Akshay

1. Section 326A IPC - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
o Description: Akshay threw acid on Aarohi's face, causing severe injuries that
required immediate medical attention.
2. Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder.
o Description: By throwing acid, Akshay intended to cause injuries which were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
3. Section 354 IPC - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
modesty.
o Description: Akshay attempted to force Aarohi to marry him against her will
and used criminal force in doing so.
4. Section 506 IPC - Criminal intimidation.
o Description: Akshay threatened Aarohi with acid to force her compliance to
marry him.
5. Section 509 IPC - Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
o Description: Akshay's persistent harassment and attempts to contact Aarohi
despite her clear refusal can be seen as insulting her modesty.
6. Section 365 IPC - Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to
confine person.
o Description: Akshay, with Harish’s assistance, attempted to forcefully take
Aarohi to a temple to marry her without her consent.
o
Charges Against Harish

1. Section 326A IPC - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
o Description: Harish abetted Akshay in the plan to threaten Aarohi with acid,
leading to the grievous hurt caused by Akshay.
2. Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder.
o Description: By suggesting the use of acid as a threat and assisting Akshay,
Harish shared the intent to cause injuries that could potentially lead to death.
3. Section 354 IPC - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her
modesty.
o Description: Harish assisted Akshay in the attempt to force Aarohi into
marriage against her will, using criminal force.
4. Section 506 IPC - Criminal intimidation.
o Description: Harish’s plan involved the use of acid as a threat to intimidate
Aarohi into marrying Akshay.
5. Section 509 IPC - Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
o Description: Harish's encouragement of Akshay's actions can be seen as an
insult to Aarohi’s modesty.
6. Section 365 IPC - Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to
confine person.
o Description: Harish conspired with Akshay to abduct Aarohi and forcefully
marry her without her consent.

11
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

Additional Charges for Both Akshay and Harish

7. Section 120B IPC - Criminal conspiracy.
o Description and reliable witness in this case as he is a friend of deceased and
has a history of dishonesty and fraud?

12
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1: Whether the accused can be held liable for section 354 IPC?

The petitioner asserts that the accused, Akshay Mehra, is liable under Section 354 IPC, which
deals with assault or criminal force used on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.
Akshay's actions towards Aarohi, culminating in the acid attack, clearly demonstrate a
violation of this section.

ISSUE 2: Whether the Accused can be held liable for section 326A IPC?

The petitioner contends that Akshay Mehra is directly responsible for the grievous hurt
inflicted upon Aarohi by throwing acid on her face. This act was not only premeditated but
also executed with intent to cause severe harm, as evidenced by Akshay carrying the acid
with the plan to use it as a threat. The injuries sustained by Aarohi are severe and required
immediate medical intervention, thereby fulfilling the criteria for grievous hurt under Section
326A IPC.

ISSUE 3: Whether Akshay Mehra’s and Harish’s plan to forcibly marry Aarohi
constitutes criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC?

The petitioner contends that the premeditated plan devised by Akshay and Harish to forcibly
marry Aarohi constitutes criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Their coordinated
actions to abduct Aarohi, threaten her with acid, and force her into marriage demonstrate a
clear conspiracy to commit illegal acts, making both individuals liable under the law..

ISSUE 4: Whether the absence of any premeditated intent to cause physical harm on
the part of Akshay Mehra and Harish can reduce their culpability for the crimes
committed against Aarohi?

The petitioner argues that the premeditated nature of the plan and the use of acid as a threat
indicate a clear intent to cause harm. Both Akshay and Harish's actions were deliberate and
coordinated, and any claims of an absence of intent to cause physical harm are contradicted
by the execution of their plan. The gravity of the offenses committed against Aarohi warrants
full accountability and does not support a reduction in culpability.

13
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the accused can be held liable for section 354 IPC?

1. The The petitioner firmly contends that Akshay Mehra is liable under Section 354
IPC, which pertains to assault or use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to
outrage her modesty. The cumulative actions of Akshay, leading up to and including
the acid attack on Aarohi, unequivocally fall under this provision.

2. Section 354 IPC is designed to safeguard the modesty of women and penalize any acts
that intend to violate this sanctity. In the landmark case of State of Punjab v. Major
Singh (1966) AIR 53, the Supreme Court of India held that any act intended to or
likely to outrage the modesty of a woman falls under Section 354 IPC. The court
emphasized that modesty is an attribute associated with female human beings, and
even an act of assault with the intent to outrage modesty is punishable. This principle
squarely applies to Akshay's actions in this case.

3. First, Akshay's persistent pursuit and harassment of Aarohi, despite clear rejections
and warnings from her and her parents, establish a pattern of behavior intended to
exert control and intimidation. Akshay's continuous attempts to contact Aarohi
through personal visits, phone calls, and the internet, demonstrate a sustained pattern
of harassment, aimed at instilling fear and distress in Aarohi. This persistent pursuit
falls within the legal definition of harassment and stalking, thereby infringing upon
Aarohi's right to privacy and safety.
4. On the day of the incident, Akshay's attempt to forcibly take Aarohi to the temple to
marry him against her will, further underscores his intent to outrage her modesty.
When Aarohi resisted, Akshay resorted to physical force, dragging her towards the
car. This act of criminal force was done with the clear intent to exert control over
Aarohi’s will and autonomy, a direct assault on her dignity and modesty.
5. Moreover, the involvement of Harish, who suggested the use of acid as a threat to
coerce Aarohi into compliance, escalates the severity of the offense. Although Harish
played a role in devising the plan, Akshay's execution of the plan, particularly the use
of acid, demonstrates his willingness to employ extreme measures to achieve his
objective. The use of acid as a threat is not just a criminal act of intimidation but also
a severe attack on Aarohi’s physical and mental integrity.
6. In the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, the Supreme Court
held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and an act like touching, using
criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty, falls within the scope of Section

14
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

354. Akshay’s act of dragging Aarohi, coupled with the threat of acid, clearly
indicates an intent to subdue her resistance, thereby outraging her modesty.

In conclusion,

7. the petitioner argues that Akshay's actions clearly fulfill the criteria under Section 354
IPC. His persistent harassment, use of criminal force, and the intent to coerce Aarohi
into marriage against her will, collectively constitute an assault on her modesty,
warranting his liability under this section. The petitioner seeks stringent legal action
against Akshay to address the grievous violation of Aarohi's dignity and autonomy.

ISSUE 2: [Assuming the HC is the right forum] Had the NGT been right to refuse to hear
the matter, and in finding the case premature;

8. The petitioners argue that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) erred in refusing to
hear the matter and in finding the case premature. The NGT's decision to wait for the
final Environmental Clearance ignored the ongoing violations of the petitioners' rights
and the irreversible damage to their environment and cultural heritage. The petitioners
contend that the environmental and social impacts of the proposed mining operations
were immediate and significant, warranting urgent judicial intervention.

2.1 Jurisdiction of the NGT Under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010

9. Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction over all civil
cases where a substantial question relating to the environment is involved. This
includes cases where the enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment is
in question. The petitioners argue that their case clearly falls within this jurisdiction,
as it involves significant environmental concerns and the protection of their legal
rights under various environmental laws.

15
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

2.2 Principle of Ripeness

10. The principle of ripeness ensures that courts and tribunals do not adjudicate on
matters that are premature or speculative. However, the petitioners argue that their
case was ripe for adjudication, as the environmental clearance process was marred by
procedural irregularities and violations of their rights. The petitioners contend that the
NGT should have intervened to address these issues and to prevent further harm. In
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp SCC 87 14, the Supreme Court of India
held that judicial intervention is warranted when there is a clear violation of law or a
failure of natural justice. The petitioners argue that the NGT should have exercised its
jurisdiction to address the procedural irregularities and violations of their rights in the
environmental clearance process.

2.2 Immediate and Significant Environmental Impacts

11. The petitioners contend that NGT refuses to hear the matter on the ground that it was
premature ignoring that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21,
and 29 of the Constitution were being violated by the ongoing mining operations. The
1

right to equality (Article 14) was compromised as the petitioners were not given an
equal opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the mining
lease. The right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) was curtailed by the
suppression of peaceful protests. The right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) was
threatened by the environmental degradation and displacement caused by the mining
operations. The right to conserve their distinct culture (Article 29) was at risk due to
the destruction of sacred hills and cultural sites.

12. The petitioners argue that the environmental and social impacts of the proposed
mining operations were immediate and significant, warranting urgent judicial
intervention. The NGT's refusal to hear the matter ignored the irreversible damage to
their environment and cultural heritage. The petitioners cite the case of Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)9, where the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of the precautionary principle in environmental law. The
precautionary principle requires that preventive measures be taken when there is a risk
of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, even in the absence of full
scientific certainty.

2.3 Legal Framework for Environmental Protection

13. The petitioners argue that the NGT should have reviewed the legality of the actions of
the State Government and Hydanta Corporation and ensured compliance with
statutory provisions. The lease for bauxite mining was granted without obtaining the
consent of the Gram Sabha, as required under the provisions of the Panchayats
1
14. S.P. Gupta v Union of India [1981] Supp SCC 87.

16
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) 5 and the Forest Rights Act,
20066. The petitioners were not informed or consulted fairly, and their objections
were ignored during the Public Hearing process. In the landmark case of Samatha v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)7, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot
grant mining leases in Scheduled Areas without the consent of the Gram Sabha,
emphasizing the importance of local self-governance and the protection of tribal
rights.

14. The environmental impact assessment process was flawed, and the Environmental
Clearance granted to Hydanta Corporation was based on incorrect and misleading
information. The proposed mining operations posed a significant threat to the
environment, including the destruction of sacred hills, streams, and forests. The NGT

2
should have scrutinized the environmental clearance process legal standards.

2.4 Special Provisions for Scheduled Areas

15. The petitioners argue that the actions of the State Government and Hydanta
Corporation are in direct contravention of the special protections afforded to
Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and various statutory provisions. The
Constitution provides special protections for Scheduled Tribes, recognizing their
unique relationship with the land and their cultural heritage. The petitioners' rights to
their land, culture, and environment are being disregarded.
16. The petitioners cite the case of Niyamgiri Case (2013)2, where the Supreme Court
upheld the rights of Scheduled Tribes to their land and cultural heritage, emphasizing
the need for their consent in any developmental projects affecting their areas. The
failure to obtain Gram Sabha consent further demonstrates the unreasonableness of
the actions of the State Government and Hydanta Corporation.

2.5 Principles of Natural Justice

17. The petitioners also contend that the NGT should have been address the matter that
the Public Hearing was unfair throughout the time that the proceedings were
conducted in a language that the petitioners did not understand. The necessary
documents were not made available in their language, and their objections were
ignored. This lack of transparency and participation violates the principles of natural
justice. Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1960) 15: The Supreme Court
held that any decision made by a biased authority is null and void. The Court
emphasized that the rule against bias is essential to maintaining the integrity of the
2
9. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647.
5. Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, ss 4(l), 4(i)
6. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006,
referring to sections 3(i) and 3(k).
7. Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] 8 SCC 191

17
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

decision-making process also in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 16: This
landmark case established that the principles of natural justice apply to administrative
proceedings as well.

2.6 Need for Timely Judicial Intervention

18. The petitioners argue that the NGT's refusal to hear the matter and finding the case
premature ignored and The NGT's mandate is to provide effective and expeditious
disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and
other natural resources. By refusing to hear the matter, the NGT failed to fulfill its
mandate and protect the petitioners' rights.
19. The petitioners cite the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)17, where the
Supreme Court emphasized the need for timely judicial intervention to prevent
environmental degradation. The Court held that the right to a clean and healthy
3

environment is a fundamental right under Article 21, and any action that threatens this
right must be scrutinized by the judiciary. The petitioners argue that the NGT should
have intervened to prevent further harm and provide timely relief.

Conclusion

20. In conclusion, the petitioners submit that the NGT was not right in refusing to hear the
case on the grounds of prematurity. Despite ongoing violations of fundamental rights
and significant procedural irregularities, including a flawed public hearing process,
the NGT failed to fulfill its mandate to provide effective and expeditious disposal of
environmental cases. The NGT, established as a remedy for those facing
environmental issues, has instead become an obstacle for environment safety by
taking matter lightly and refusing to hear the case. This refusal represents a significant
lapse, as the NGT was specifically created to address such concerns., the NGT chose
to dismiss the case, thereby neglecting its duty. Therefore, the petitioners respectfully
request this Honorable Court to rectify the NGT's oversight, provide the necessary
relief to safeguard their rights and interests, and ensure that justice is served.

3
2. Niyamgiri Judgement (2013) 12 SCC 795
15. Mineral Development Ltd v State of Bihar [1960] 2 SCR 609.
16. A.K. Kraipak v Union of India [1969] 2 SCC 262
17. M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath [1997] 1 SCC 388.

18
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

ISSUE 3: [Assuming the HC is the right forum] Was the Final Environmental
Clearance provided by the competent authority in compliance with the existing law,
and, reasonable by a Wednesbury standard.

21. The petitioners, want to argue that the environmental clearance granted to Hydanta for
bauxite mining in Tijimali. This clearance threatens the tribe's way of life, cultural
heritage, and the environment they have protected for generations. The arguments
presented are grounded in constitutional provisions, statutory protections, and relevant
case laws.

3.1 Historical Biodiversity

22. The Sindhu region was historically rich in biodiversity, with numerous streams,
rivers, forests, and a long coastline. The Dongra tribe, among others, lived
harmoniously with nature, sustaining their livelihoods through traditional practices.
This historical context underscores the tribe's deep connection to the land and the
environment. In Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment &
Forest(2006)18, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of preserving the

19
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

cultural and environmental heritage of indigenous communities, emphasizing the need

to protect traditional lands and habitats.

3.2 21st Century Decline

23. In the 21st century, most wildlife has been extinguished, rivers have dried up or
become polluted, and urbanization has led to massive waste dumps and deforestation.
Pesticides have contaminated water and food supplies, exacerbating the
environmental crisis. The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India19
highlighted the detrimental effects of industrial pollution on the environment and
public health, mandating stringent measures to control pollution and protect natural
resources.

3.3 Corporate Exploitation

24. Corporations have profited by extracting natural resources at low costs, leaving
behind barren landscapes. The profits from these activities have not benefited the
local communities, who now face the brunt of environmental destruction. In Sterlite
Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India20, the Court held that corporate activities
must not compromise environmental sustainability and the rights of local
communities, emphasizing corporate responsibility in ensuring environmental
protection.

3.3 Scheduled Tribes and Legal Provisions

25. The Dongra tribe, residing in the remaining forests, has preserved their environment
4
through sustainable practices. These areas, designated as Schedule V Areas, are in
26. better condition due to the tribe’s stewardship. The Supreme Court in Samatha v.
State of Andhra Pradesh7 ruled that the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals for
mining purposes is unconstitutional, reinforcing the special protections afforded to
Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution. The Fifth Schedule to the Constitution
empowers the Governor to regulate the allotment of land in these areas, imposing a
total prohibition on the transfer of land to non-tribals.

27. The Constitution and specific Acts provide special protections for Scheduled Tribes,
recognizing their unique relationship with the land. These laws are intended to
safeguard their livelihoods and cultural heritage. In Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti v.
Union of India2, the Court upheld the rights of indigenous communities to their
traditional lands, emphasizing the need for their free, prior, and informed consent
before any developmental activities. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 6, further mandates that no
member of a forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe shall be evicted from forest land until
the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

3.4 Mining Interests

4
18. Orissa Mining Corporation v Ministry of Environment & Forest [2006] 6 SCC 407.
19. M.C. Mehta v Union of India [1997] 1 SCC 388.
20. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v Union of India [2001] 2 SCC 203.

20
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

28. Hydanta, a mining corporation, has obtained a lease for bauxite mining in Tijimali
without the consent or knowledge of the Dongra tribe. This lease threatens the tribe’s
way of life and the environment they have protected for generations. The Supreme
Court in Vedanta Resources Plc v. Union of India21 ruled that the consent of the
Gram Sabha is mandatory for any mining activities in tribal areas, underscoring the
importance of community participation in decision-making processes
.
3.5 Community Resistance

29. The Dongra tribe has launched peaceful protests against Hydanta’s mining operations,
fearing the destruction of their sacred hills, streams, and forests. These protests
highlight the tribe’s deep connection to their land and their determination to protect it.
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 22, the Court recognized the right of
communities to protest against developmental projects that threaten their environment
and livelihoods, affirming the importance of public participation in environmental
decision-making.

3.6 Sacred Hills

30. The proposed mining area includes hills that are sacred to the Dongra tribe, sources of
vital streams, and sites of annual festivals. The destruction of these hills would not
only
5
harm the environment but also violate the tribe’s cultural and spiritual practices. The
Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India 23 emphasized
the

need to protect sacred groves and other culturally significant sites from environmental
degradation, highlighting the intrinsic link between cultural heritage and environmental
conservation.

3.7 Government and Corporate Coordination

31. The State government and Hydanta have coordinated efforts to suppress the protests,
arresting leaders and filing FIRs against others. Despite this repression, the
community continues to resist, demonstrating their resilience and commitment to their
cause. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 24, the Court
condemned the suppression of peaceful protests and emphasized the right to freedom
of expression and assembly, reinforcing the need to protect the rights of marginalized
communities
.
3.8 Public Hearing

5
7. Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] 8 SCC 191.
2. Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti v Union of India [2013] 5 SCC 433.
6. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006,
referring to sections 3(i) and 3(k).
21.Vedanta Resources Plc v Union of India [2012] 6 SCC 773.
22. Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India [2000] 10 SCC 664.
23. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India [2002] 10 SCC 606.

21
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

32. The Public Hearing on the mining project was conducted in a manner that excluded
the Dongra tribe from meaningful participation. Language barriers and a lack of
transparency prevented the villagers from understanding the proceedings and voicing
their concerns effectively. The Supreme Court in Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta
Sangathan v. Union of India25 ruled that public hearings must be conducted in a
transparent and inclusive manner, ensuring that all affected communities can
participate meaningfully, stressing the importance of accessibility and informed
participation.

3.9 Legal Challenges

33. The villagers approached the National Green Tribunal, which advised them to wait for
the Environmental Clearance. Despite their objections, the Clearance was granted,
ignoring the tribe’s legitimate concerns about environmental and cultural impacts. In
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 9, the Court held that
environmental clearances must consider the concerns of local communities and the
potential impact on their environment and livelihoods, emphasizing the need for a
precautionary approach in environmental decision-making.

3.10 Forest Department Report

34. A Committee of Experts confirmed the presence of forests and wildlife in the
proposed mining area. However, the report allowed mining to proceed, citing outdated
records and dismissing the need for Gram Sabha consent. The Supreme Court in
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 26 ruled that environmental
assessments must be based on current and accurate data, underscoring the importance
of up-to-date
6
information in environmental decision-making.

3.11 Final Clearance and Wednesbury Standard

35. The Forest Department granted the diversion request, and the competent authority
issued the Final Environmental Clearance to Hydanta, except for one sacred hill.
Hydanta has begun clearing the land, disregarding the tribe’s protests and the
environmental damage that will ensue. In Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
of India27, the Court held that environmental clearances must be subject to strict
scrutiny and compliance with all legal requirements, emphasizing the need for
accountability and transparency in the clearance process.

36. The decision to grant environmental clearance to Hydanta does not meet the
Wednesbury standard of reasonableness. According to the Wednesbury principle, a
decision is unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable person acting
reasonably could have made it. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v.
Wednesbury Corporation28, the Court set out the standard for unreasonableness in
6
24. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India [2004] 3 SCC 433.
25. Adivasi Majdoor Kisan Ekta Sangathan v Union of India [2011] 6 SCC 469.
9. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647.
26. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra [2010] 3 SCC 414.
27. Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India [2011] 7 SCC 338.

22
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

administrative decisions, stating that a decision must be "so outrageous in its defiance
of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind
to the question to be decided could have arrived at it." The clearance granted to
Hydanta, despite the significant environmental and cultural impacts and the lack of
consent from the Dongra tribe, clearly falls within this definition of unreasonableness.

Conclusion

37. The petitioners urge the Court to revoke the environmental clearance granted to
Hydanta and protect the rights of the Dongra tribe. The arguments presented highlight
the tribe’s deep connection to their land, the environmental and cultural impacts of the
mining project, and the legal protections afforded to Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners
seek justice for the Dongra tribe and the preservation of their environment and
cultural heritage.

ISSUE 2: [Assuming the HC is the right forum] Had the NGT been right to refuse to hear
the matter, and in finding the case premature;

ISSUE 2: [Assuming the HC is the right forum] Had the NGT been right to refuse to hear
the matter, and in finding the case premature;

23
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

ISSUE 2: [Assuming the HC is the right forum] Had the NGT been right to refuse to hear
the matter, and in finding the case premature;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Revoke the Environmental Clearance granted to Hydanta for bauxite mining in

Tijimali, as it was obtained without the free, prior, and informed consent of the
Dongra tribe and violates the principles of environmental justice and sustainable
development.
2. Declare the Lease Agreement between the State Government and Hydanta for
bauxite mining in Tijimali as null and void, as it contravenes the constitutional
protections and statutory rights of the Scheduled Tribes under the Fifth Schedule and
the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
3. Direct the Respondents to restore the environment in the affected areas to its original
condition, including reforestation and rehabilitation of the land, streams, and wildlife,
in accordance with the principles of ecological restoration and the Polluter Pays
Principle.
4. Issue a Mandamus directing the State Government to ensure that any future
developmental activities in Schedule V Areas are conducted only with the free, prior,
and informed consent of the Gram Sabha, in compliance with the constitutional and
statutory provisions protecting the rights of Scheduled Tribes.
5. Order Compensation to be paid by Hydanta to the Dongra tribe for the
environmental and cultural damage caused by the unauthorized mining activities,
including compensation for loss of livelihood, displacement, and cultural heritage.
6. Grant any other relief that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the interest
of justice and equity.sett

The petitioners humbly submit this prayer for the protection of their rights, environment, and
cultural heritage, and seek the intervention of this Honorable Court to uphold the principles
of justice, equity, and sustainable development.The court may also be pleased to pass any
other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good
conscience. For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of

24
 ARYANS COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT 2024

The Petitioner

Sd/-

..............................

(Counsel for the “Petitioner’”)

25