1.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Under Article 131

1.1.1 Absence of State-to-State Conflict: In *State of Karnataka v. Union of India* (1978), the
Supreme Court emphasized that Article 131 applies when there is a direct conflict between
states or between a state and the Union. Here, the primary dispute involves NPC, a
corporate entity, not a direct conflict between states, making it less suited for Article 131.

1.1.2 The respondents could argue that, as per *State of Rajasthan v. Union of India* (1977),
Article 131 is reserved for issues where there’s a clear constitutional or legal dispute
between states, rather than for environmental matters primarily directed at a private entity.

1.1.3: In cases like *State of Bihar v. State of Jharkhand* (2004), the Court noted that High
Courts could handle cases within their respective jurisdictions. Here, since the Pravia and Agron
High Courts are already hearing petitions, these courts could address localized environmental
concerns.

1.1.4 In *State of West Bengal v. Union of India* (1963), it was held that Article 131 disputes
must be between governmental entities, not private parties. Since NPC is a corporate
entity, it may argue that Article 131 does not apply to disputes over its actions. In *M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India* (1987), the Supreme Court noted that High Courts play an
essential role in environmental PILs. Given that this case involves localized
environmental complaints, High Courts are well-positioned to handle the petitions
effectively.

1.1.5 *In Re: Noise Pollution (2005)* established that High Courts are empowered to take
localized environmental actions. Respondents could argue that this is a local pollution
issue, making High Courts more suitable forums.

1.1.6 In *M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath* (1997), the Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts
have broad powers under Article 226 to address environmental PILs, making Article 131
unnecessary in this case.

1.1.7 *Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar* (1991) emphasized High Courts’ role in enforcing
environmental safeguards under Article 226. The respondents could argue that Article
226 provides a more direct remedy for environmental violations affecting citizens
locally.
2. Liability of NPC for River Sarita Contamination**

2.1.1 In *Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. Union of India* (2013), the Court acknowledged the
company’s right to operate if it complied with environmental standards. NPC could
similarly argue that it operates within legal requirements and holds all necessary
environmental clearances.

2.1.2 In *Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India* (1996), it was stated that
companies compliant with environmental standards are protected from undue liability.
NPC could argue that its audits show compliance.

2.1.3 In *B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India* (1996), the Court held that adhering to
environmental processes indicates reasonable care. NPC could argue that it has
followed all environmental standards in good faith.

2.1.4 *Goa Foundation v. Union of India* (2014), the respondents could argue that as no
violations were found in regular inspections, NPC should not be penalized without concrete
proof.

2.2 Role of Unauthorized Industrial Units**

2.2.1 In *Orissa State Pollution Control Board v. M/s Swarnrekha Cements* (2006), the Court
noted the importance of establishing direct pollution sources. NPC could argue that
unauthorized units along the river could be the primary polluters.

2.2.2 In *M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath* (2000), it was established that causation needs to be
clear in pollution cases. NPC could argue that until a clear link is shown, it is unfair to
hold them liable.

2.2.3 In *Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India* (1995), the Court
acknowledged the role of unauthorized industries in environmental degradation. NPC
could argue that such factories are likely sources of contamination.
 2.2.4 Essar Oil Ltd. V. Halar Utkarsh Samiti* (2004) noted the importance of causative proof.
Here, NPC could argue that the chain of causation has not been established linking its
plant to the river’s pollution.

2.3 Pending Independent Investigation by Central Environmental Authority (CEA)

2.3.1 In *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* (1978), it was held that due process is essential
in investigations. NPC could argue that it should not be penalized until the CEA
investigation is completed.
2.3.2 The respondents may cite *Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India* (1990),
arguing that NPC should be presumed innocent until proven guilty based on factual
evidence from an independent investigation.

2.3.3 The Supreme Court in *A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu* (1999)
emphasized the role of thorough investigations by competent authorities. Respondents
could argue that the pending CEA report is critical before any judgment.

2.3.4 *T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India* (2006), the Court allowed delay as
grounds for postponing decisions. Respondents could argue that the matter should be
stayed until the CEA report is issued.

3. Alleged Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21

3.1 Lack of Causal Evidence for Fundamental Rights Violation

3.1.1 In *Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India* (2005), the Court held that
fundamental rights violations require a clear causal link. Respondents could argue that
no direct evidence links NPC to a fundamental rights breach.

3.1.2 In *Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa* (2006), the Court
required quantifiable evidence of harm. NPC could argue that no such evidence exists in
this case.
 3.1.3 In *Taj Trapezium Case* (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1997), the Court required
concrete proof of environmental impact. NPC could argue that allegations alone don’t
constitute a violation under Article 21.

3.1.4 *Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame* (1990) noted that Article 21 rights
violations must be proven. NPC could argue that the alleged rights infringement lacks
evidence.

3.2 Balancing Fundamental Rights and Economic Development

3.2.1 In *Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India* (2000), the Court held that
development needs must be balanced against environmental concerns. Respondents
could argue that NPC’s economic benefits outweigh unproven environmental claims.

3.2.2 In *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India* (Relocation of Industries, 1996), the Court
emphasized balancing industrial benefits with environmental impacts. NPC could
highlight its role in local economic growth.

3.2.3 The respondents could cite *Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation* (1985),
which held that rights under Article 21 are not absolute. NPC could argue that the right
to livelihood from economic activities must also be protected.