SHRI I.

M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

TEAM CODE: TC-15

SHRI I.M. NANAVATI NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 21-22

BEFORE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDISIA

OS. NO: ……/ 2021

UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISIA

VIRAG MOTORS AND TRISHNA CARS & Ors…................PETITIONER

versus

UNION OF INDISIA.................................................................RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMSSION FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 1 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATION.................................................................................................... 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 10

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... 13

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ............................................................................................. 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED/PLEADINGS ....................................................................... 16

ISSUE I: IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDISIA?
.............................................................................................................................................. 16

[1.1] The individual writ is not maintainable as there is no fundamental right violation. 16

[1.2] The PIL is not maintainable as there is no Fundamental right violation. ................ 17

[1.3] The policy decision of the state cannot be challenged. ............................................ 18

ISSUE II: IS THE VEHICLE SCRAPPAGE POLICY VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISIA? ................................................................................ 20

[2.1] The policy is not violative of Article 14 as the policy is not arbitrary and
discriminatory. .................................................................................................................. 20

[2.1.1] The policy does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. 20

[2.1.2] The Policy decision has been framed based on the Rule of Reason. .................... 20

[2.2] The policy is not violative of Article 19(1)(g). ........................................................ 22

[2.2.1] Policy enhances employment opportunities.......................................................... 22

[2.2.2] Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on Article 19(1)(g). ............................... 23

[2.3] The policy ensures the Right to Life under Article 21 of the constitution of india. 24

[2.3.1] Importance of livelihood versus Importance of Environment .............................. 24

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION,
THE PUBLIC OPINION BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE POLICY CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 2 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

AND VALID, AND IF NOT, WAS THE SAME GRAVE ENOUGH TO CHALLENGE THE ENTIRE POLICY?

.............................................................................................................................................. 28

[3.1] Public Opinion is not necessary as Environmental protection is the obligation of the
state. .................................................................................................................................. 28

[3.2] Public opinion is not necessary as the preamble of the constitution itself emphasizes
the responsibility of the state to take action in matters of environmental protection. ...... 30

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 32

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 3 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR ...………………………………………….……………………….……All India Reporter

Art…………………………………………………………………………………..…...Article

Cl…………………………………………………...………………..………….…….…Clause

CPC………………………………………………………………………Civil Procedure Code

CRPC……………………………………………...………………....Criminal Procedure Code

Edn……………………………………………………...………….……………….…..Edition

HC…………………………………………..………………………………………High Court

Hon’ble…………………………………………………….……..…………...……Honourable

J……………………………………………………………………..…..……………….Justice

No………………………………………………………...………..……..…………….Number

O……………………………………………………….………….……...……………….Order

Ors…………………………………………….……………………..…..………………Others

Para………………………………………………….……………….…...…………..Paragraph

S…………………………………..…………………………….………………………Section

SC…………………………………..………………………….……………….Supreme Court

SCC……………………………..…………...………………….………..Supreme Court Cases

SCR………………………………...…...…………………….………..Supreme Court Reports

Vs…………………………………….……………...……………………...…………..Versus

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 4 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. ANIRUDH PRASAD, JUDICIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL REVIEW, (EASTERN BOOK COMPANY
2012).
2. ARUNA VENKAT, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, AND POLICY, (PHI 2011).
3. COLETTE DAIUTE, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & POLITICAL VIOLENCE, (CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2007)
4. DARREN J O’ BYRNE, HUMAN RIGHTS: AN INTRODUCTION, (ROUTLEDGE 2003)
5. DR. A. KRISHNA KUMARI, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,
(HYDERABAD: THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY PRESS 2007)
6. DR. A. KRISHNA KUMARI, ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE, (HYDERABAD: THE ICFAI
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2007)
7. ARVIND P. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (LEXIS NEXIS
2007).
8. DR. L.M. SINGVI, JAGADISH SWARUP CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (MODERN LAW
PUBLICATIONS 2013).
9. DR. L.M. SINGHVI, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,

(MODERN LAW PUBLICATIONS 1971).

10. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (LEXIS NEXIS
2007).
11. DURGA DAS BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (ABCIBOOK
PUBLICATIONS 2008).

12. DURGA DAS BASU, LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW, (LEXIS NEXIS 2015).
13. ELIZEBETH FISHER, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS, (OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2013).
14. H.W. E. WADE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, (OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2009).
15. 3RD VOLUME, H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (UNIVERSAL LAW
PUBLISHING CO. 2008).
16. JANUSZ SYMONIDES, HUMAN RIGHTS: NEW DIMENSIONS AND CHALLENGES,
(ROUTLEDGE PUBLISHERS 1998).
17. 2ND VOLUME, JUSTICE T.S DOABIA, ENVIRONMENT & POLLUTION LAWS, (LEXI NEXIS
2010).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 5 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

18. V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (EASTERN BOOK COMPANY 2008).

19. M. HIDAYTULLAH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (LUCAS PUBNS 1984).
20. M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (LEXISNEXIS 2018)
21. OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, (CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2010).
22. P. LEELAKRISHNAN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA, (LEXIS NEXIS 2008).
23. PARAS DIWAN, ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATION LAW, AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE,
(DEEP & DEEP PUBLICATIONS 1992).
24. R. SATYA NARAYANA, NATURAL JUSTICE: EXPANDING HORIZONS, (ICFAI UNIVERSITY
PRESS 2008).
25. R. DUXBURY, BLACKSTONE’S STATUTES ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (BLACKSTONE
PRESS 1994).
26. S. SHANTHAKUMAR, INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (LEXIS NEXIS 2008).
27. S.C. SHASTRI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (EASTERN BOOK CO. 2008).
28. S.P. SATHE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, (LEXIS NEXIS 2004).
29. SHYAM DIVAN, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY IN INDIA, (OXFORD 2002).
30. STUARD BELL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (OUP OXFORD 2008).
31. SUMEET MALIK, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 2008).
32. THOMAS RISSE, THE POWER OF HUMAN RIGHTS: A GLOBAL AGENDA, (CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS 1999).
33. V.B. MALLESWARI, HUMAN RIGHTS: A GLOBAL AGENDA, (HYDERABAD ICFAI
UNIVERSITY PRESS 2007).
34. V.B. MALLESWARI, HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES, (HYDERABAD
ICFAI UNIVERSITY PRESS 2007).
35. V.R. KRISHNA IYER, THE DIALECTICS & DYNAMICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA,

(EASTERN LAW HOUSE 1999).

36. WILLIAM A. EDMUNDSON, AN INTRODUCTION TO RIGHTS, CAMBRIDGE (UNIVERSITY
PRESS 2012).

37. ZYGMUNT J.B. PLATER, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY: NATURE, LAW AND

SOCIETY, (PANEL PUBLISHERS 1992).

38.

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India 1950, Acts of Parliament, 1950 (India).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 6 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

2. The Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act. 1981, No.14, Act of Parliament, 1981
(India).
3. The Environment Protection Act. 1986, No.29, Acts of parliament,1986 (India).
4. The Environment Protection Rules. 1986, No.29, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India)
5. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act. 1997, No.22, Acts of
Parliament,1997 (India)
6. The Protection of Human Rights Act. 1993, No.10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
7. National Green Tribunal Act. 2010, No.19, Acts of Parliament, 2010 (India).

CASES

Indian Cases

1 Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India, WP(C)80 of 2006………….18

2 Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC
1539…………………………………………………………………………………..16
3 Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. v.A.P. Health,
Medical, Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd. and Anr., 2002
(2) ALD 609…………………………………….…………………...……………….18
4 B. Krishna Murthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (2) ALT 342……………….....21
5 BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333…………...17
6 Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 1124………………….....…17
7 Burrabazar fireworks Dealers v. the Commissioner of Police, AIR 1998 Cal 121..…18
8 Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044………………….16
9 Chiranjit Lal Choudhuri v Union of India, 1950 SCR 869………………………......21
10 Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC 870…………………………….…………17
11 Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Guj 133…17
12 Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, 1954 AIR 220………………..…..22
13 D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (2) 165……………………...…22
14 Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457………………………………………….19
15 Deena Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155………………………………....19
16 Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) 1892 of
2007…………………………………………………………..………………………18
17 Election Commission of India v. Dr Subramaniaam Swamy, 1996 SCC (4) 104…...22
18 Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 715….17

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 7 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

19 Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, (1981) ILLJ 193 SC…...…16
20 G.B Mahajan v. Jalgaon Muncipal Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153……………………19
21 Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1……………………………………..…17
22 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7
SCC.5………………………………………………………………………………...17
23 Hamid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 MP 191………………….........28
24 In Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668…………………………………….26
25 Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 3240……………….22
26 M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086………………………………………17
27 Magan Bhai v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCC 400…………………………………..17
28 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597………….25
29 R.K Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138……………………………..….…..19
30 Ratlam Municipality v. Vardicharan, 1980 AIR 1622……………………………….25
31 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP, 1985 SCR (3) 169………...24
32 S Jagannath v. Union of India, [(1997) 2 SCC87]……………………………..….…23
33 Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Sm. Deorajin, AIR 1960 SC 941…………………………......19
34 SC Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCR 530………………………………..…..19
35 Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, AIR 2002 SC 322…....20
36 Shashikant Laxman Kale and Anr. v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 2114…………..….21
37 State of M.P and others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and other, (1986) 4 SCC 566…………...19
38 State of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors, (1998) 4 SCC 117…………..19
39 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991 SCR (1) 5…………………………..........…24
40 Sushila Devi v. Ramnandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177…………………………..….19
41 Tej Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State Through Data……………………………....….22
42 T.N Godavarmam Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors, (2002)10 SCC 606………29
43 Virender Gaur v State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577……………………………….26
44 Yaro Khan v. Union of India, WP(C) 2599 of 2007…………………………..……..19

LAW REPORT:

1. JUSTICE M. JAGANNADHA RAO, Report on the Proposal to Constitute Environment

Courts (September 2003).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 8 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. Pooja Kapur, Constitutional provisions for environmental protection in India,

IPLEADERS (Nov. 27, 2021, 9.10 pm), https://blog.ipleaders.in/constitution-
environment-provisions/?amp=1
2. Gauri Dushi, Importance of public opinion in every Society, PRESERVE ARTICLES
(Nov.29, 2021, 8 pm), https://www.preservearticles.com/political-science/importance-
of-public-opinion-in-every-society/30514
3. Dr. S. B. M. Marume, People’s participation in the Administrative Process, IJBMI
ORG (Dec. 2, 2021, 10 am), https://www.ijbmi.org/papers/Vol(5)9/version-
3/J05936568.pdf
4. Ricardo Perez, Access to information, participation and justice in environmental
matters, REPOSITORIO CEPAL (Nov.30, 2021, 10.10 pm),
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43302/1/S1701020_en.pdf.
5. John Carson Cato, Environmental public policy: An analysis of public opinion and
environmental legislation in North Carolina, SCHOLAR WORKS (Dec.5, 2021,11 pm),
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=dilley.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 9 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of India, 19501.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

1
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.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 10 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Indisia is one of the very fast-growing economies situated in the southeast of the globe.
Owing to their rapidly increasing numbers and limited use of emission control technologies,
such motor vehicles are emerging as the largest source of urban air pollution, particularly
in mega and metro cities.
II. Although the number of vehicles in Indisia’s metropolitan cities is much less compared to
that in developed countries, yet ill-maintained vehicles, outdated engine designs, defective
road networks, erratic driving patterns, and congestion due to mixed & slow-moving traffic
are all adding to the air pollution problem. Realizing the gravity of the problem, various
Government Agencies in the country have initiated various steps to check vehicular
pollution and manage the growth of motorized transport for maximum benefit with
minimum adverse impact on the environment and society.
III. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of Indisia announced a procedure to set up
Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facility (RVSF). The main purpose of the said policy is to
preserve the ecosystem which in turn may attract additional investments of around Rs.
10,000 Crore and aim for the creation of as many as 35,000 job opportunities. The policy
ensures that more than 10 years old petrol vehicles and more than 15 years old diesel
vehicles are stopped from plying within the territories of these cities to combat the
emissions.
IV. The Policy derives its functionality from one of the Directive Principles of State Policies
as Enshrined under the Indisian Constitution, casting a duty on the state to improve the
Natural Environment. The policy mainly covers within its ambit Private and Commercial
Vehicles of 10- 15 years old and Passenger Vehicles of more than 20 years old. The
operative part of the Policy provides that such Vehicles shall be mandatorily scrapped if
they do not pass the ‘Fitness and Emission Test’. The Policy is made applicable to
Government Vehicles as well.
V. Various PILs were filed by many traders and distributors of second-hand cars in the
supreme court. Two renowned car dealing companies of Membad called Virag Motors and
Trishna Cars and one such Jolly Motors of Manpur vehemently opposed the policy by filing
individual writ petitions before the Supreme Court.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 11 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

VI. An NGO called SAATH which works for the protection of basic Human Rights of the
citizens also raised its concern regarding the implementation of the policy. SAATH too has
filed a PIL challenging the said policy in Supreme Court.
VII. The Supreme Court clubbed all the PILs of a similar nature as one Writ Petition No. XXXX/
2019 under Article 32 to the Indisian Constitution and initiated the Proceedings. To date,
the Supreme Court of Indisia took four hearings on the matter, and the same is now pending
for Final Hearing before the Court on this day.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 12 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDISIA?

ISSUE II

IS THE VEHICLE SCRAPPING POLICY VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDISIA?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, THE
PUBLIC OPINION BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE POLICY CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE AND
VALID, AND IF NOT, WAS IT GRAVE ENOUGH TO CHALLENGE THE ENTIRE POLICY?

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 13 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE I: IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDISIA?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Petition is not
maintainable as there is no locus standi for the petitioner and the policy is not violative of
fundamental rights. The main objective of the policy is to protect the environment. Here the
present contention will be dealt in the threefold manner as [1.1] That the individual writ is not
maintainable as there is no fundamental right violation [1.2] That the PIL is not maintainable
as there is no fundamental right violation [1.3] That the policy decision of the state cannot be
challenged.

ISSUE II: IS THE VEHICLE SCRAPPAGE POLICY VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISIA?

The policy decision has not been framed arbitrarily as the policy aims to dispose of the
pollution-causing vehicles to save the environment from pollution and improve living
standards. It has been passed keeping in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy that every
Government should achieve. It’s a prior necessary to scrap the vehicles which cause heavy
pollution. This policy doesn’t lead to any kind of discrimination as it applies to all the citizens
even the Government vehicles. This policy also provides large opportunities to every class of
people. The State can under clause (6) of Article 19 make any law by imposing reasonable
restrictions on this right ‘in the interest of public’. Through the Policy, a restriction is imposed
only on Second-hand car dealers which is a reasonable restriction to safeguard the
environment. The main purpose of the said policy is to preserve the ecosystem and improve
the standard of living and also not violative of Article 21.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO TAKE INTO

CONSIDERATION, THE PUBLIC OPINION BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE POLICY

CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE AND VALID, AND IF NOT, WAS THE SAME GRAVE ENOUGH

TO CHALLENGE THE ENTIRE POLICY?

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 14 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the vehicle scrappage
policy is constitutionally appropriate and valid as the failure on the part of the state to take
public opinion into consideration before the enactment of the policy is not grave enough to
challenge the entire policy. Public opinion is not necessary as environmental protection is the
obligation of the state. Article 47, Article 48 A, Article 51 A of the constitution gives power to
the state to take decisions in the matters of environmental protection. It is the duty and the
responsibility of the state to implement the policies and take necessary measures to protect
nature from excessive pollution. Hence state has the authority and public opinion is not
necessary for this present matter.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 15 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED/PLEADINGS

ISSUE I: IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDISIA?

1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the instant matter is not
maintainable before the Court of Law. The petitioner lacks the essential ingredients to
maintain the matter before the apex Court. Though the Hon’ble Court has clubbed the
matters, yet certain issues regarding the maintainability of the case must be highlighted
before this Court to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
2 No action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 unless there is an infringement of a
Fundamental Right,2 as the Supreme Court has previously emphasized that “The violation
of Fundamental Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32.”3
In the given case, it was the act of the petitioner which breached the ethics of the Court
which consequently, attracted suspension, and hence no Fundamental Right has been
infringed. The present contention will be in the three-fold manner as follows;
[1.1] The individual writ is not maintainable as there is no fundamental right violation.
[1.2] The PIL is not maintainable as there is no Fundamental right violation.
[1.3] The policy decision of the state cannot be challenged.
[1.1] The individual writ is not maintainable as there is no fundamental right violation.

3 It is most humbly submitted that a person acquires a locus standi when he has to have a
personal or individual right that has been violated or threatened to be violated.4 Since no
right of the petitioner has been infringed, he has no locus standi to approach before the
Court. Here in the present matter, the individual writ filed by the two renowned car dealing
companies is not maintainable as there is no fundamental right regarding the loss of
business as no actions of the respondent could be traced to have resulted in the loss of
business.
4 As the mere running of negative propaganda regarding the policy would affect the business
of an individual cannot be traced to have caused the loss of business and the same cannot
be considered as a violation of fundamental rights. Hence, it is submitted that the petition
submitted before this Hon’ble Court is not maintainable and thus should be rejected.

2
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539.
3
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India AIR 1981
4
Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 16 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

[1.2] The PIL is not maintainable as there is no Fundamental right violation.

5 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Art.325 can be invoked only when Fundamental Right has been infringed.6No
question other than relating to a Fundamental right will be determined in a proceeding
under Art. 32.7 Thus, where there is no infringement of Fundamental right or scope for
enforcement of any Fundamental Right, the writ petition is not maintainable on the fragile
ground.8 In the instant matter, no Fundamental right has been infringed, rather than that the
government has only enforced the directive Principle of state policy under Article 48A and
51A.
6 In the case of Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India9, the court held
that the environment, more than anything else, is and should be a concern for all. It was
one thing that was available free to all the inhabitants of an area and this environment
needed to be maintainable to ensure a healthy life. And also, from the case of M.C Mehta
v. Union of India10 the Court held that the Life, Public Health and Ecology has priority over
unemployment and loss of revenue problem. Here, in the present matter, the PIL filed for
the violation of fundamental rights by the NGO is not maintainable as the government
enacted this policy by considering Broader Public Interest and Environmental Safeguards.
As per the state, Broder Public Interest takes precedence over the interest of a few, and the
environment takes priority over ‘revenue sharing’ and that it is the state’s constitutional
mandate under Article 48A and 51A casting duty on not just the state but on every citizen
to improve the Natural Environment.
7 Moreover, infringement of Fundamental Right cannot be founded on remote or speculative
grounds.11 There is no such action that infringes or poses a threat to the fundamental rights
of the citizens. Mere apprehension that the petitioner would be deprived of his Fundamental
Right of the citizens is not enough to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32. 12

5
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
6
Gopal Das v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 1; Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors,
AIR 1974 SC 1539; Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546;
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
7
Coffee Bd. v. Joint C.T.O., AIR 1971 SC 870.
8
Federation of Bar Association in Karnataka v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 715.
9
Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Guj 133.
10
M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086.
11
Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 1124.
12
Magan Bhai v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCC 400.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 17 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

8 Here, in the present matter, the PIL’s are filed only because of a mere assumption that the
policy would directly attack their fundamental rights and livelihood moreover it leads to
huge economic loss to the country’s GDP. From the case of Burrabazar Fireworks Dealers
v. the Commissioner of Police13 case itself, the Court held that the freedom to carry trade
and Business comes with its own set of reasonable restrictions, and therefore any kind of
trade that causes environmental pollution cannot be entertained.
9 Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Court that the main purpose of the policy is to
preserve the ecosystem which in turn may attract additional investments of around Rs.
10,000 crore and aim for the creation of as many as 35,000 job opportunities 14. Therefore,
it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present case is not
maintainable and should be dismissed.

[1.3] The policy decision of the state cannot be challenged.

10 The respondent most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the Supreme Court
has long held that interference into policy actions is not within its jurisdictions15 reiterated
in the recent Iodine Salt Case.16 It has been held that a writ petition cannot be maintainable
if its sole purpose is to question a policy decision of the government17 such as
BALCOEmployees Union v. Union of India18, and a host of other cases. The list is truly

13
Burrabazar fireworks Dealers v. the Commissioner of Police, AIR 1998 Cal 121.
14
Para 8 of the Moot preposition.
15
Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors, Appeal (civil) 1892 of 2007 “This Court in a series
of decisions has reiterated that courts should not rush in where even scientists and medical experts are careful to
tread. The rule of prudence is that courts will be reluctant to interfere with policy decisions taken by the
Government, in matters of public health, after collecting and analysing inputs from surveys and research. The
scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. Courts cannot interfere with policy
either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.
Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.
16
Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India, WP(C)80 of 2006, 4 July 2011
17
Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. v.A.P. Health, Medical, Housing and
Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd. and Anr., 2002 (2) ALD 609 “It is the policy of the Government
and the Corporation to procure and distribute drugs supplied by the manufacturers with WHO GMP, and a writ
petition is not maintainable to question the policy decision. The decision is not arbitrary and irrational… It is
evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to
embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be
evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has
been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical”
18
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2001 AIR SCW 5135 “It was submitted … that the
wisdom and advisability of economic policies of Government are not amenable to judicial review. It is not for
Courts to consider the relative merits of different economic policies. Court is not the Forum for resolving the
conflicting clauses regarding the wisdom or advisability of policy.”

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 18 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

extensive19, as the underlying principle is sound in law. 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 government to decide the validity of a policy. 20 It is a matter
of public policy that the court not permit litigations on the same issue to be raised in
perpetuity21 as no undertaking will ever succeed if such a practice is encouraged.
11 Here, in the present matter, there is no mala fide intention as the main objective of the
policy was to environmental safeguard. In State of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga
& Ors22 case the Court held that when government forms its policy, it is based on a number
of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on resources. It is also based on
expert opinion. It would be dangerous if Court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect
of the policy, or its appraisal based on facts set out in affidavits. The court would dissuade
itself from entering into the realm which belongs to the executive. It is within the matrix
that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts
reimbursement on account of its financial constraints.
12 Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the policy is not made on mala
fide intention, arbitrary or unreasonable. It is very clear from the Annexure-II of the
preposition itself that the government has formulated the policy based on proper surveys
and framed it based on safe and proper clauses only for the protection of the environment
in the public interest. Therefore it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Apex Court that
the petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

19
SC Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCR 530; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, (1981)
ILLJ 193 SC; R.K Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138; G.B Mahajan v. Jalgaon Muncipal Council, AIR
1991 SC 1153.
20
State of M.P and others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and other, (1986) 4 SCC 566.
21
Sushila Devi v. Ramnandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177; Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Sm. Deorajin, AIR 1960 SC 941;
Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457; Deena Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155; Yaro Khan v.
Union of India, WP(C) 2599 of 2007.
22
State of Punjab & Ors v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors, (1998) 4 SCC 117.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 19 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

ISSUE II: IS THE VEHICLE SCRAPPAGE POLICY VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISIA?

13 It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the policy decision of
the government is not violative of the fundamental rights as
[2.1] The Policy is not violative of Article 14 as the policy is not arbitrary and
discriminatory.
[2.2] The Policy is not violative of Article 19(g).
[2.3] The policy ensures the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

[2.1] The policy is not violative of Article 14 as the policy is not arbitrary and
discriminatory.

14 It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Policy in question is in
conformity with the principles embodied under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, and is
neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

[2.1.1] The policy does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

15 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors23
opined that “In order to be described as arbitrary, it must be shown that it was not reasonable
and manifestly arbitrary. The expression “arbitrarily” means: in an unreasonable manner,
as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not
founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or
judgment, depending on the will alone.”
16 The respondent submits that the policy decision has not been framed arbitrarily. The Policy
has been issued to bring about a change in society. It aims to dispose of the pollution-
causing vehicles to save the environment from pollution and improve living standards. It
has been passed keeping in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy that every
Government should achieve. The policy is not arbitrary as firstly, the policy takes
consideration of broader public interest. Secondly, the said policy is to preserve the
ecosystem. Thirdly policy aims to create as many job opportunities.24
[2.1.2] The Policy decision has been framed based on the Rule of Reason.

23
Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, AIR 2002 SC 322.
24
Para 8 moot proposition.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 20 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

17 The policy ensures that more than 10 years old petrol vehicles and more than 15 years old
diesel vehicles causing pollution are stopped from plying within the territories of these
cities to combat the emissions. This decision was taken by the Government for reducing
the pollution level existing in the environment. It’s a prior necessary to scrap the vehicles
which cause heavy pollution. This policy doesn’t lead to any kind of discrimination as it
applies to all the citizens even the Government vehicles. This policy also provides large
opportunities to every class of people.
18 The Policy derives its functionality from one of the Directive Principles of State Policies
as Enshrined under the Indian Constitution, casting a duty on the state to improve the
Natural Environment. The responsibility of the State is to protect the environment.
International law gave rise to the principle of “State responsibility” for pollution emanating
within one’s own territories. This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972. The policy mainly covers within
its ambit Private and Commercial Vehicles of 10- 15 years old and Passenger Vehicles of
more than 20 years old. The operative part of the Policy provides that such Vehicles shall
be mandatorily scrapped if they do not pass the ‘Fitness and Emission Test’. The Policy is
made applicable to Government Vehicles as well.
19 Article 48-A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavor to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article
51-A of the Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia,
to protect and improve the national environment. These two articles provide the duty of the
State to apply these principles in making laws and purport of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution including Article 14, 19, 21, and also the various laws
enacted by Parliament and the State Legislature. This Policy was enacted by the
government in accordance with Articles 48-A and 51-A and is not violative of any
fundamental right.
20 The principle underlying guarantee of Art. 14 is not that the same rules of law should be
applicable to all persons within the Indian Territory or that the same remedies should be
made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances.25 It only means that all
persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and
liabilities imposed.26 Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and

25
Chiranjit Lal Choudhuri v Union of India, 1950 SCR 869; B. Krishna Murthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
2005 (2) ALT 342.
26
Shashikant Laxman Kale and Anr. v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 2114.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 21 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject
matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same.27 Through the policy no
discrimination in the society as treats every people equally.
21 Counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the
policy decision of the government is based on scientific research, rule of necessity28, and
reason and is therefore not arbitrary and thus does not violate the provision under Art. 14
of the Constitution of India.
[2.2] The policy is not violative of Article 19(1)(g).

22 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the main purpose of the
policy is to preserve the ecosystem which in turn may attract additional investments and
employment opportunities. Therefore, the policy is not violative of Article 19(1)(g).

[2.2.1] Policy enhances employment opportunities.

23 Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution confers the fundamental right of every citizen
“to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business”. This is
subject to reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot carry on business activity if it is a health
hazard to society or the general public. Thus, safeguards for environmental protection are
inherent in this. The Supreme Court, while deciding the matter relating to carrying on the
trade of liquor in Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner29, the court observed that,
if there is a clash between environmental protection and the right to freedom of trade and
occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights
to carry on any occupations. In the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India30
the court held that the fundamental right to trade has to be balanced with demands of social
interest and trade dangerous to ecology could either be regulated or prohibited entirely.
24 The government is setting up authorized vehicle scrapping facilities, this will, in turn,
generate huge employment opportunities in India. The policy aims to create as many job
opportunities as it is not violative of Article 19(g). Governments in association with vehicle
manufacturers from across the globe have been implementing a car scrapping policy to

27
D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, 1983 SCR (2) 165; Tej Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State through
Data Din, 1954 CriLJ 1399.
28
Election Commission of India v. Dr Subramaniaam Swamy, 1996 SCC (4) 104.
29
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, 1954 AIR 220.
30
Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 3240.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 22 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

ensure an increase in sales of new vehicles as well as the removal of inefficient vehicles
from the roads.
25 The drastic downfall in the automobile sector and rising emission levels from old near-
scrap vehicles have called for immediate implementation of the scrappage policy. To curb
pollution and battle the slowdown in the automobile sector, the Government of India has
proposed and funded a car scrapping policy. This policy aims at replacing old vehicles on
Indian roads. Once a vehicle’s registration certificate expires beyond its operational limit,
a user can go to any government-authorized scrapping center and surrender the vehicle.

[2.2.2] Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on Article 19(1)(g).

26 The State can under clause (6) of Article 19 make any law by imposing reasonable
restrictions on this right ‘in the interest of public’. Through the Policy, a restriction is
imposed only on Second-hand car dealers which is a reasonable restriction to safeguard the
environment. Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India provides that nothing in Article
19(1)(g) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause. It is open to the
State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights enshrined under Article
19(1)(g).
27 In M.C Mehta v. Union of India31, 1994, it was directed by the Supreme Court that the
industries who did not comply or adhere to, with the prior direction of the Hon’ble court
regarding the installation of air pollution controlling system should be closed. In this case,
the Supreme Court laid down its greater emphasis on Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
28 In S. Jagannath v. Union of India32, sea beaches and sea coasts were considered to be the
gifts of nature, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and any such activity which pollutes these
natural resources or the gift of nature cannot be permitted to function. In this case, a shrimp
farming culture industry by modern method causing degradation to the ecosystem,
discharge of polluting effluents, is polluting the potable ground-water and depletion of the
plantation. All of these activities were held to be violative of constitutional provisions and
other legislation dealing with environmental matters, by the court.

31
Id. at 17.
32 S Jagannath v. Union of India, [(1997) 2 SCC87].

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 23 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

29 In Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise commissioner33, the Supreme court provides the upper
hand to environment protection in comparison to freedom of trade. So, the citizen cannot
practice such trade or business activities if it is hazardous to the health of the public. The
court further held that before the installation of any such industry in a fragile coastal area
it is essential for them to necessarily pass the strict environmental test. In other words,
reasonable restrictions can be laid in accordance with Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
30 Thus, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that broader public interest takes
precedents over the interest of a few and the environment takes priority over revenue
sharing and that it is the state constitutional mandate under Article 48 A and 51 A casting
a duty on not just the state but on every citizen to improve the natural environment.
Therefore, the policy is not violative of the Right to Profession under Article 19(g).

[2.3] The policy ensures the Right to Life under Article 21 of the constitution of india.

31 The Respondent submits that the vehicle scrapping policy introduced by the government is
not violative of Art. 21 as it is introduced by broader public interest and for the
environmental safeguard.
32 Article 21 of the constitution of India provides for the right to life and personal liberty. It
states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.” In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP34,
also known as the Dehradun quarrying case, the Supreme Court of India has held that
pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people, and hence,
the same should be stopped as being violative of Article 21 and the Supreme Court for the
first time held that the right to a wholesome environment is a part of the right to life and
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

[2.3.1] Importance of livelihood versus Importance of Environment

33 In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar35, the apex court held that the right to get
pollution-free water and the air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this
decision, the right to a pollution-free environment was incorporated under the head of the
right to life and all the law courts within the Indian territory were bound to follow the same.
This laid down the foundation of environmental litigation in India. Similarly, public health

33
Id. at 22.
34
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of UP, 1985 SCR (3) 169.
35
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991 SCR (1) 5.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 24 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

and ecology were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the constitution of a green
bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court. In the case of Ratlam Municipality v.
Vardicharan36, where the problem of pollution was due to private polluters and haphazard
town planning, it was held by the Supreme Court that a pollution-free environment is an
integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
34 Here in the present matter, the implementation of this policy has many benefits to have a
better environment. As inefficient vehicles will be taken off the roads, the air pollution
levels will decrease. With the increased sale of new vehicles with advanced safety features,
commuting on Indian roads will become a lot safer. Everyone has the right
to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have
the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through
reasonable legislative and other measures that
i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
ii. promote conservation; and
iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while
promoting justifiable economic and social development.
35 Environmental rights may be broadly categorized into two: substantive and procedural
rights. Of the substantive rights, the right to a clean and safe environment is the most basic
one and other related rights include the rights to safe drinking
water, to clean air, and to safe food. The procedural aspect refers to the processes by which
citizens may act to protect the environment. This includes the rights to environmental
information, participation in environmental decision-making, and access to justice.
36 The Constitution of India under Article 21 protects the right to life of persons as a
fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including the right to live with
human dignity37 encompasses within its ambit, the protection, and preservation of the
environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without
which life cannot be enjoyed38. Any contracts or actions would cause environmental
pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution, etc. should be regarded as
amounting to violations of Article 21.39 Thus, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have
been entertaining environmental petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian

36
Ratlam Municipality v. Vardicharan, 1980 AIR 1622.
37
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597.
38
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 : AIR 1991 SC 420.
39
Available at: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/the-role-played-by-indian-judiciary-in-environmental-
protection/38440/, (accessed on 27* Oct. 2016).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 25 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

Constitution as constituting a violation of Article 21.40 While entertaining environmental

litigations by environmental NGOs and enlightened public figures like M.C. Mehta41, these
courts have passed landmark judgments, thereby forcing public bodies to take action on
burning environmental issues42.
37 The Court recognized in Virender Gaur v State of Haryana43 that a healthy environment is
one free from environmental pollution. The Court observed that Article 21 protects the right
to life as a fundamental right including the right to live with human dignity encompasses
within its ambit, the protection, and preservation of the environment, ecological balance
free from pollution of air and water, sanitation, without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any
contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air
and water pollution, etc., should be regarded as amounting to a violation of Article 21.
Therefore, a hygienic environment is an integral facet of the right to a healthy life and it
would be impossible to live with human dignity without a human and healthy environment.
There is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the municipalities, not
only to ensure and safeguard a proper environment but also an imperative duty to take
adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and the natural
environment.
38 This proposed policy seeks to phase out unfit vehicles to reduce vehicular pollution, meet
the climate commitments, improve road safety and fuel efficiency, formalize informal
vehicle scrapping industry and recover low-cost material for the automotive, steel, and
electronics industry. The Union ministry of road transport and highways will help to set up
registered vehicle scrapping facilities including integrated vehicle scrapping facilities
under public-private participation and ensure compliance with environmental regulations
for the safe disposal of waste. This will enable depollution equipment, water, and sound
pollution control, and hazardous waste management.
39 The central government will also support a network of automotive fitness centers with
adequate test-only lanes, information technology servers, and other facilities and encourage

40
In Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668, it has been held that public interest litigation for ensuring
communal harmony is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution.
41
Mahesh Chandra Mehta is a public interest attorney from India. He was awarded the Goldman Environmental
Prize in 1996 for his continuous fights in Indian courts against pollution-causing industries. He received the
Ramon Magsaysay Award for Asia for Public Service in 1997. The Government of India awarded him the civilian
honour of the Padma Shri in 2016.
42
Available at: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/the-role-played-by-indian-judiciary-in-environmental-
protection/38440/, (accessed on 27th Oct. 2016).
43
Virender Gaur v State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 26 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

private investments. These centers will help identify unfit and end-of-life vehicles. These
unfit vehicles emit more than 10-12 times the pollutants than fit vehicles.
40 The preamble of the NGT Act 2010 also recognizes the right to a healthy environment as
part of the right to life. Principles underpinning international environmental law, namely
sustainable development, precautionary and polluter pays principles, have been absorbed
into the right to a healthy environment and applied by the NGT.44 A healthy environment
is thus emphatically confirmed as part of the right to life in India and was applied by the
NGT in the case of Supreme Court Group Housing Society Through its Secretary v. All
India Panchayat Parishad.45 Protection, preservation, and promotion of the
natural environment are possible only through concerted efforts of all the components of
society such as executive and non-governmental organizations, industrialists,
agriculturists, voluntary social welfare organizations, and the general public. The final
controlling authority in most of the issues related to environmental protection is the
executive itself.
41 Thus, it is humbly submitted that the main purpose of the said policy is to preserve the
ecosystem and the Policy derives its functionality from one of the Directive Principles of
State Policies enriched under the Indisian Constitution, casting a duty on the State to
improve natural environment. Therefore, the policy is not violative of fundamental rights
conferred under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indisia.

44
Section 20 NGT Act 2010.
45
Judgment dated December 18 2012.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 27 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO TAKE INTO

CONSIDERATION, THE PUBLIC OPINION BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE POLICY

CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE AND VALID, AND IF NOT, WAS THE SAME GRAVE ENOUGH

TO CHALLENGE THE ENTIRE POLICY?

42 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the failure on the part of the state to
take public opinion into consideration is not grave enough to challenge the entire policy.

[3.1] Public Opinion is not necessary as Environmental protection is the obligation of the
state.

43 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that environmental protection is the
obligation of the state as the state has the power to take decisions in matters of
environmental protection. Article 253 of the constitution empowers the parliament of our
country to make laws that can be applicable to the whole or any territory of the country for
implementing any agreement or convention signed with other countries or countries.
44 The state and the authorities are under the obligation to regulate and implement policies for
the benefit of the people. Article 47 of the constitution puts an obligation on the state that
it shall regard the standard of living of its people. Also, it emphasizes that the primary duty
of the state shall be to improve public health.
45 Article 48-A of the Constitution obligates the state to preserve and protect the environment.
The provision of this article imposes the duty on the state to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It also says that the state
shall not only play the role of being protectionists but also enact adequate measures for
improvement of the environment. From all these its clearly evident that it’s the ultimate
responsibility and duty of the state to act appropriately and take measures to ensure the
protection of environment. If the state fails to do so, it would be considered as negligence.
So in the matters of environmental protection, the failure of state to consider the public
opinion is not really grave enough to challenge the entire policy.
46 Another essential provision dealing in protecting the environment is Article 253 of the
constitution which empowers the parliament of our country to make laws which can be
applicable to the whole or any territory of the country. In the case of Hamid khan v. state
of Madhya Pradesh46, the state was negligent to supply water from the handpumps, colossal
damage was caused to the citizens, which affected their health massively. Hence, due to

46
Hamid khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 MP 191.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 28 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

this gross negligence on the part of the state, the Supreme Court held that the state failed to
perform its basic duty.
47 Vehicular emissions are one of the main reasons which make Delhi the world’s most
polluted capital city. If the right to have a clean and safe environment for the citizens are
not taken care at the right time, then it would deteriorate public health. It’s the supreme
duty and responsibility of the state to take necessary measures in matters of public health.
If not, the public itself would start questioning about the same and the state would be
accountable for it.
48 In T.N Godavarmam Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors47, a three-Judge bench of the
court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the foundation for a
jurisprudence of environmental protection and the court held that ‘the state and the citizens
are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment.
49 It is thus clear that faced with the question of testing the constitutional validity of any
statutory provision or an executive act, or for testing the reasonableness of any restriction
cast by law on the exercise of any fundamental right by way of regulation, control or
prohibition, the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties as enshrined
in Article 51-A of the constitution play a significant role. Under all these provisions of the
constitution, the obligation of the state is clearly stated and thus the state has the authority
and power to take measures in order to protect the environment and thereby ensure the
health of the public.
50 Even though all the citizens of India have a fundamental right to carry on any profession
or business, trade, or commerce at any place within the territory of India under Article
19(1)(g) of the constitution. But this is not an absolute right and thus, has reasonable
restrictions to it. Article 19(6) of the constitution lays down the reasonable restrictions to
this fundamental right to avoid the environmental hazards.
51 The purpose is to avoid the ecological imbalance and degradation of the atmosphere in the
name of carrying on a trade, business, occupation or carrying on any profession. Thus in
the name of business or profession, one cannot cause harm to the environment.
52 In M.C Mehta v. Union of India,48 certain tanneries were discharging effluents in the holy
river Ganga which was causing water pollution. Further, no primary treatment plant was
being set up despite the constant reminders. It was held by the court to stop the tanneries

47
T.N Godavarmam Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors, (2002)10 SCC 606.
48
M.C Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 29 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

from working because the effluents drained were ten times more noxious as compared to
the ordinary sewage water which flows into the river.
53 The court ordered while directing tanneries to be stopped from working which have failed
to take necessary steps as required for the primary treatment of effluents from the industries.
The court while passing this order contended that, though the court is conscious about the
unemployment that might usher due to the closure of the tanneries but health, life and
ecology holds greater importance in the eyes of law.
54 In M.C Mehta v. Union of India,49 1994, it was directed by the supreme court that the
industries that did not comply or adhere to, with the prior direction of the Hon’ble court
regarding the installation of air pollution controlling system should be closed. In this case
also the Supreme Court laid down the greater emphasis on Article 19(6) of the constitution.

[3.2] Public opinion is not necessary as the preamble of the constitution itself emphasizes
the responsibility of the state to take action in matters of environmental protection.

55 The failure on the part of the state to consider public opinion before the enactment of the
policy is not grave enough to challenge the entire policy as the state has the constitutional
power to implement policies for the protection of the environment. The preamble of the
Indian constitution begins by stating that the people of India solemnly resolve to constitute
India into a socialist country. This indicates that our constitution upholds the socialist
pattern of society. Thus, it aims at solving and dealing with social problems first rather than
concentrating on individual problems. The interest and welfare of the public are given
utmost importance.
56 The presence of pollutants in the atmosphere is alarmingly high as vehicular emissions are
increasing day by day. Increasing degradation of the environment is posing a great threat
and ignoring it would cause destruction of the environment at large and thereby it harms
mankind. It is the responsibility of the state to uphold the socialistic nature of the
constitution by taking stringent measures to make the environment free from all forms of
pollution. The obligation of the state includes not only a pollution-free environment but
also a decent standard of living. Public opinion seems to be much more effective only in
influencing policymaking at the local level than at the state or national levels. It’s
practically impossible for the state to take the public opinion into consideration in this
present matter since the protection of environment should be given priority than the

49
Id. at 27.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 30 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

freedom of trade and profession as it can be reasonably restricted by the state. If the old
vehicles are replaced by new and efficient cars, it would only be benefiting the general
public in the long run as it widens the automobile industry, thereby employment
opportunities and increasing the GDP as well. The standard of living of the citizens can be
increased and pollution-free environment would guarantee a healthy and safe atmosphere.
57 Thus it is most humbly submitted that the policy is not unconstitutional and the failure on
the part of the state to take public opinion into consideration is not grave enough to
challenge the entire policy as environmental protection is the obligation of the state.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 31 of 32

 SHRI I.M NANAVATI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 21-22

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE
COURT THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD, AJUDGE AND
DECLARE THAT,

1. The Petition is not maintainable under Article 32 of Constitution of Indisia.

2. The National Vehicle Scrappage Policy is Constitutionally valid.

OR TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSL FOR TH RESPONDENT SHALL

DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

All of which is most humbly submitted,

Counsel for Respondent

Sd/-

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT Page 32 of 32