Petitioner Working New_Edited
-
Upload
amit-waskel -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Petitioner Working New_Edited
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
1/19
SSCCHHOOOOLLOOFFEEXXCCEELLLLEENNCCEE,,55TTHH
PPRROOBBOONNOOEENNVVIIRROONNAATTIIOONNAALLMMOOOOTTCCOOUURRTTCCOOMMPPEETTIITTIIOONN
CCHHEENNNNAAII,,TTAAMMIILLNNAADDUU,,IINNDDIIAA
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF DASOI
PPeettiittiioonnss ffiilleedduunnddeerr
AArrttiiccllee 3322 oofftthhee
CCoonnssttiittuuttiioonn ooffDDaassooii
WW..PP.. NNoo..:: ooff22001122
TTHHEEPPRREESSIIDDEENNTT,,GGAAYYAA PPeettiittiioonneerrNNoo.. 11
KKEEEERRII PPeettiittiioonneerrNNoo.. 22
vs.
UUNNIIOONNOOFFDDAASSOOII RReessppoonnddeennttNNoo.. 11
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
MMoosstt RReessppeeccttffuullllyy SSuubbmmiitttteeddttoo tthhee HHoonnbbllee CChhiieeff
JJuussttiiccee ooffIInnddiiaa && ootthheerr CCoommppaanniioonn JJuuddggeess oofftthhee
HHoonnbbllee SSuupprreemmee CCoouurrtt ooffDDaassooii
22001122
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
2/19
-TABLE OF CONTENTS- Page i ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS
CCOONNTTEENNTTSS PPAAGGEE
IINNDDEEXX OOFF AAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS iiii ooff xxii
LLIISSTT OOFFAABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS vviiii ooff xxii
SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFFJJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONN vviiiiii ooff xxii
SSYYNNOOPPSSIISS OOFFFFAACCTTSS iixx ooff xxii
SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFFCCHHAARRGGEESS xx ooff xxii
SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFFAARRGGUUMMEENNTTSS xxii ooff xxii
PPLLEEAADDIINNGGSS AANNDDAAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS 11 ttoo 77
11.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE DDEECCIISSIIOONN OOFF TTHHEEGGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT TTOO SSEETT UUPP UURRAANNIIUUMM MMIINNEESS AANNDD NNUUCCLLEEAARRPPLLAANNTTSS JJUUSSTTIIFFIIEEDD??................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
22.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT CCAANN BBEE HHEELLDD LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORR TTHHEE DDAAMMAAGGEE TTOO TTHHEEEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF TTHHEE MMIINNIINNGG AANNDD PPOOWWEERR PPLLAANNTT AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS??......................................................33
33.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE CCIIVVIILL LLIIAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF NNUUCCLLEEAARR DDAAMMAAGGEE AACCTT 22001122,, SSEECCTTIIOONN 55 IINNPPAARRTTIICCUULLAARR,, IISS UUNNCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL??..44
44.. WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEE OORRDDEERR PPAASSSSEEDD BBYY TTHHEENNUUCCLLEEAARROORRDDEERRCCLLAAIIMMSSTTRRIIBBUUNNAALL IISSVVOOIIDD??................77
PPRRAAYYEERR FFOORRRREELLIIEEFF....88
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
3/19
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page ii ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
II NN DD EE XX OO FF AA UU TT HH OO RR II TT II EE SS
CASES
1. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 ..................................................................... 52. A.R. Antulay vs. R.S Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 ...................................................................... 4
3. Accountant General vs. S. Doraiswamy, (1981) 4 SCC 93 ..................................................... 4
4. Anandi Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 .......................................... 8
5. Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 5 SCC 201 ...................................... 10
6. B.B. Rajwanshi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1089 ....................................... 4
7. Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 60 ................................................ 5
8. Bijayanand v. President of Union of India, AIR 1974 Ori 52 ................................................. 8
9. Binny Limited v. V. Sadasivan, 2005 AIR (SC) 3202 ............................................................. 8
10.C. Ravinchandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, 1995 SCC (5) 457 ............................ 14
11.Chanderbhan vs. S. Kumar, AIR 1980 Bom 48 ..................................................................... 4
12.Chintaman Rao v. Slate of M.P., A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118 .......................................................... 8
13.Civil Writ Petition of theHigh Court of Himachal Pradesh, C.W.P 155 of 1984 ................. 10
14.Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 .......................... 8
15.Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2005 ........ 5
16.Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43 ................................. 10
17.Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 306................ 5
BOOKS
DURGA DAS BASU: CONSTITUTIONALLAW OF INDIA, WADHWA AND COMPANY,
NAGPUR,7TH EDN.(REP.2003). JAIN, M.P.: INDIAN CONSTITUTIONALLAW WADHWA AND COMPANY, NAGPUR, 5TH
EDN.(REP.2005).
KAGZI:CONSTITUTIONOFINDIAINDIA LAW HOUSE,6TH EDN.(2001).
KASHYAP, SUBHASH C.: PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE - LAW, PRIVILEGES,
PRACTICE&PRECEDENTS2ND EDITION (2007).
MALIK, SURENDRA: SUPREME COURT ON WORDSANDPHRASES, EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY,1ST EDN,LUCKNOW (1993).
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
4/19
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page iii ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
MALIK, SURENDRA: SUPREME COURT YEARLY DIGEST 1999, EASTERN BOOK
COMPANY,LUCKNOW (1999).
SEERVAI, H.M.: CONSTITUTIONALLAW OF INDIA:A CRITICAL COMMENTARY
UNIVERSAL BOOK TRADERS,4TH EDN.(1997).
SHUKLA,V.N.:CONSTITUTIONOFINDIAEASTERN BOOK COMPANY,10TH EDN.(2003).
SINGH, G. P.: PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORYINTERPRETATION, 12TH
ED., NAGPUR:
WADHWA,BUTTERWORTHS LEXIS NEXIS (2010).
DICTIONARIES
AIYAR,RAMANATHA P.:THELAWLEXICON,WADHWA &COMPANY,2ND EDN.NAGPUR
(2002).
BLACK,HENRY CAMPBELL:BLACKSLAWDICTIONARY,6TH
ED.,CENTENNIAL ED.(1891-
1991).
CURZON.L.B:DICTIONARYOFLAW,PITMAN PUBLISHING,4TH EDN.NEW DELHI (1994).
GARNER,BRYAN A.:ADICTIONARYOFMODERNLEGALUSAGE,OXFORD UNIVERSITY
PRESS2ND EDN.OXFORD (1995).
GREENBERG,DANIEL AND ALEXANDRA,MILLBROOK:STROUDSJUDICIALDICTIONARY
OFWORDS&PHRASES,VOL.2,6TH
ED.,LONDON:SWEET &MAXWELL (2000).
JUSTICE DESAI, M.C. AND AIYAR, SUBRAMANYAM: LAWLEXICON &LEGALMAXIMS,
2ND
ED.,DELHI:DELHI LAW HOUSE (1980).
MITRA, B.C. & MOITRA, A.C., LEGAL THESARUS, UNIVERSITY BOOK, ALLAHABAD
(1997).
MOYS, ELIZABETH M., CLASSIFICATION & THESAURUS FORLEGALMATERIAL, 3RD
ED.,LONDON:BOWKER SAUR (1992).
OPPE., A.S., WHARTONSLAWLEXICON, 14
TH
ED., NEW DELHI: SWEET & MAXWELL(1997).
PREM, DAULATRAM, JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 1ST ED., JAIPUR: BHARAT LAW
PUBLICATION (1992).
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT,2010
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
5/19
-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page iv ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
INTERNET SITES
Official Sites
http://mpa.nic.in/
http://www.cag.gov.in/
Legal Sites
http://www.findlaw.com
http://www.indiankanoon.com
http://www.indlawinfo.org/
http://www.jstor.org.
http://www.judis.nic.in
http://www.lawsofindia.org
http://www.manupatra.com
http://www.scconline.com
http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
6/19
-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS- Page v ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
LL II SS TT OO FF AA BB BB RR EE VV II AA TT II OO NN SS
A.I.R. ALLINDIAREPORTER
AC APPELLATECOURT
All ALLAHABAD
AP ANDHRA PRADESH
Art. ARTICLE
Bom BOMBAY
Cal CALCUTTA
Co. COMPANY
Comm. COMMISSIONER
CrLJ CRMINALLAWJOURNAL
Del DELHI
e.g. EXEMPLUM GRATIA(FOR EXAMPLE)
Ed. EDITION
JT JUDGMENTSTODAY
Lah LAHORE
LR LAWREPORTER
Mad MADRAS
MANU MANUPATRA
p. PAGE
Para. PARAGRAPH
Pun PUNJAB ANDHARYANA
QB QUEENSBENCH
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASESSCR SUPREMECOURTREPORTER
SCW SUPREMECOURTWEEKLY
Sec. SECTION
Supp SUPPLEMENTARY
U.O.I. UNION OFINDIA
US UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
v. VERSUS(AGAINST)
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
7/19
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION- Page vi ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
SS TT AA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF JJ UU RR II SS DD II CC TT II OO NN
TTHHEEPPEETTIITTIIOONNEERRSS HHAAVVEE AAPPPPRROOAACCHHEEDD TTHHEEHHOONNBBLLEESSUUPPRREEMMEECCOOUURRTT OOFFIINNDDIIAA UUNNDDEERR
AARRTTIICCLLEE3322 OOFF TTHHEECCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONN OOFFIINNDDIIAA,, WWHHIICCHH RREEAADDSS AASS HHEERREEUUNNDDEERR::
__________________________________________
3322..RREEMMEEDDIIEESS FFOORR EENNFFOORRCCEEMMEENNTT OOFF RRIIGGHHTTSS CCOONNFFEERRRREEDD BBYY TTHHIISSPPAARRTT..
((11)) TTHHEE RRIIGGHHTT TTOO MMOOVVEE TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT BBYY AAPPPPRROOPPRRIIAATTEE PPRROOCCEEEEDDIINNGGSS FFOORR TTHHEE
EENNFFOORRCCEEMMEENNTTOOFFTTHHEERRIIGGHHTTSSCCOONNFFEERRRREEDD BBYYTTHHIISSPPAARRTTIISSGGUUAARRAANNTTEEEEDD..
((22)) TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT SSHHAALLLL HHAAVVEE PPOOWWEERR TTOO IISSSSUUEE DDIIRREECCTTIIOONNSS OORR OORRDDEERRSS OORR WWRRIITTSS,,
IINNCCLLUUDDIINNGG WWRRIITTSS IINNTTHHEENNAATTUURREEOOFFHHAABBEEAASS CCOORRPPUUSS,, MMAANNDDAAMMUUSS,, PPRROOHHIIBBIITTIIOONN,, QQUUOO WWAARRRRAANNTTOO
AANNDD CCEERRTTIIOORRAARRII,, WWHHIICCHHEEVVEERR MMAAYY BBEE AAPPPPRROOPPRRIIAATTEE,, FFOORR TTHHEE EENNFFOORRCCEEMMEENNTT OOFF AANNYY OOFF TTHHEE
RRIIGGHHTTSSCCOONNFFEERRRREEDD BBYYTTHHIISSPPAARRTT..
((33)) WWIITTHHOOUUTT PPRREEJJUUDDIICCEE TTOO TTHHEE PPOOWWEERRSS CCOONNFFEERRRREEDD OONN TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT BBYY CCLLAAUUSSEE ((11))
AANNDD((22)),,PPAARRLLIIAAMMEENNTT MMAAYYBBYYLLAAWW EEMMPPOOWWEERR AANNYYOOTTHHEERR CCOOUURRTT TTOO EEXXEERRCCIISSEE WWIITTHHIINN TTHHEE LLOOCCAALL
LLIIMMIITTSS OOFF IITTSS JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONN AALLLL OORR AANNYY OOFF TTHHEE PPOOWWEERRSS EEXXEERRCCIISSAABBLLEE BBYY TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT
UUNNDDEERR CCLLAAUUSSEE((22))..
((44)) TTHHEE RRIIGGHHTT GGUUAARRAANNTTEEEEDD BBYY TTHHIISS AARRTTIICCLLEE SSHHAALLLL NNOOTT BBEE SSUUSSPPEENNDDEEDD EEXXCCEEPPTT AASS OOTTHHEERRWWIISSEE
PPRROOVVIIDDEEDD FFOORR BBYYTTHHIISSCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONN..
__________________________________________
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
8/19
-SYNOPSIS OF FACTS- Page vii ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
SS YY NN OO PP SS II SS OO FF FF AA CC TT SS
ROFLS COMING
TO POWER:MARCH
2005
The Radical Organisation for Freedom and Liberty Party (ROFL) came into
power in March 2005. One of their campaign promises was to reduce if not
completely stop power cuts by use of nuclear power.
NUCLEAR POWER
POLICY DECISION:
JUNE 2005
In June 2005, the Government took a policy decision to set up a nuclear
power station in Bondavi District of Brinji state and also set up mining
activities in Pakodavi district in Brinji state, which had rich uranium ore
deposits, using open pit and underground mines for extraction.
JOINT HIGH LEVEL
COMMITTEE SET
UP
To study the technical, scientific, environmental and economic feasibility of
the project. All the members of the Committee were of exemplary repute in
their respective fields but had at some point in their careers, served with the
Government under the ROFL regime earlier
WRIT PETITION BY
GAYA
Filed before the Supreme Court of Dasoi against the decision of Government
to set up uranium mines and nuclear plants, on various grounds including
threat to environment and life and a subsequent direction for clean energy
practices to be adopted by Dasoi.
NUCLEAR PLANT
BECAME
OPERATIONAL:
JULY 2008
The nuclear power plant became operational in July 2008 and the project was
initially a success
NEW URANIUM
MINE SET UP
The Government therefore, commissioned another uranium mine in
Chapappu district in the state of Gongura, which has vast areas of reserve
forests and perennial rivers that serves as a potable water source for 6 statesin Dasoi.
REPORT OF KEERI
MADE PUBLIC:
NOVEMBER 2010
An independent panel of experts from Keeri, an association actively
promoting clean energy and educating the public on the ill-effects and
dangers of nuclear energy on the people and environment, carried on a
detailed study for over 2 years and made their report public
EARTHQUAKE IN
THE STATE OF
BRINJI:2010
While the matter stood thus, an earthquake of magnitude 6 on the Richter
occurred in the state of Brinji. The storage tank containing radioactive waste
in the Bondavi plant was damaged and caused a radiation leak which resulted
in the death of 150 farmers and damage to almost 200 acres of farm lands.NUCLEAR DAMAGE
CLAIMS
COMMISSION
An application was filed which dismissed the application quoting Section 5
of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
SUPREME COURT
OF DASOI
The said order, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act and more
specifically Section 5, were challenged before the High Court of Brinji under
Article 226 of the Constitution by the affected parties. The Supreme Court of
Dasoi withdrew the writ petitions pending before the High Courts of Gongura
and Brinji and clubbed it along with the writ petition pending before it and
placed the matter for final hearing.
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
9/19
-QUESTIONS PRESENTED- Page viii ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
QQ UU EE SS TT II OO NN SS PP RR EE SS EE NN TT EE DD
TTHHEEPPEETTIITTIIOONNEERRSS RREESSPPEECCTTFFUULLLLYY AASSKKSS TTHHEEHHOONNBBLLEESSUUPPRREEMMEECCOOUURRTT OOFFIINNDDIIAA,, TTHHEE
FFOOLLLLOOWWIINNGGQQUUEESSTTIIOONNSS::
11.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE DDEECCIISSIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT TTOO SSEETT UUPP UURRAANNIIUUMMMMIINNEESS AANNDD NNUUCCLLEEAARR PPLLAANNTTSS WWAASS JJUUSSTTIIFFIIEEDD??
22.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT CCAANN BBEE HHEELLDD LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORR TTHHEE DDAAMMAAGGEETTOO TTHHEE EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF TTHHEE MMIINNIINNGG AANNDD PPOOWWEERR PPLLAANNTT
AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS??
33.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE CCIIVVIILL LLIIAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF NNUUCCLLEEAARR DDAAMMAAGGEE AACCTT 2200112211,,SSEECCTTIIOONN55 IINN PPAARRTTIICCUULLAARR,, IISS UUNNCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL??
44.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE OORRDDEERR PPAASSSSEEDD BBYY TTHHEE NNUUCCLLEEAARR DDAAMMAAGGEE CCLLAAIIMMSSCCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN IISSVVOOIIDD??
1Hereinafter referred to as the Act
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
10/19
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS- Page ix ofxi
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
SS UU MM MM AA RR YY OO FF AA RR GG UU MM EE NN TT SS
1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP URANIUM MINES AND NUCLEARPLANTS WAS JUSTIFIED?
1.1THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DUTY-BOUND TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE ENVIRONMENT UNDERTHE CONSTITUTION OF DASOI.
1.2THAT THERE IS AN ADDED DUTY IN CASE OF MINING OPERATIONS DUE TO ITS DANGEROUSNATURE.
1.3THAT THE DECISION WAS TAKEN WITHOUT COMPLETE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND HENCEPREMATURE.
1.4THAT THE TIMING OF THE DECISION IMPLIES LACK OF GOOD FAITH.1.5THAT THE KEERI REPORT IS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.
2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THEENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF THE MINING AND POWER PLANT ACTIVITIES?
2.1THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOT ONLY REGULATE THE ACTS OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN MININGOPERATIONS BUT ALSO REGULATE ITSELF ON THE SAME STANDARD
2.2THAT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR PENALTY FOR CONTRAVENTION WITH THE MINERALSCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT RULES WHICH CAN BE APPLIED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS
WELL.
3. WHETHER THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT 20122, SECTION 5 INPARTICULAR, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
3.1THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 213.2THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14
4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE NUCLEAR ORDER CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IS VOID?4.1THAT SINCE THE ACT ITSELF,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS VOID ANY ORDER MADE UNDER THE
ACT SHALL ALSO BE VOID.
2Hereinafter referred to as the Act
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
11/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 1 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
PP LL EE AA DD II NN GG SS AA NN DD AA UU TT HH OO RR II TT II EE SS
1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP URANIUM MINES AND NUCLEARPLANTS JUSTIFIED?
1.1 It is submitted before this Honble Court that the decision of setting up of uranium extractionmines and nuclear power plants by the Government in June 2005 was premature and
unjustified.
1.2 It is humbly submitted that the Government has been given certain duties under theConstitution as caretakers of the welfare of the nation. Some of these entail protection and
conservation of the environment. Article 48A was inserted in the Constitution of Dasoi so as
to ensure that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forest and wildlife activities. Such a duty has also been imposed on the citizens
of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife under Article 51A. Further right to life under Article 21 includes within its ambit the
certain vital necessities namely air, water and soil. This Honble Court has repeatedly said
that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes
the right to of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.3
The
natural resources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in
irreversible damage to the environment. Such provisions of law make it amply clear that the
environment is not to be taken lightly and the Government has a duty to towards it.
1.3 This Honble Court has recognized the hazards relating to mining in the case ofM.C. Mehtav. Union of India
4. It was distinguished that mining operation is hazardous in nature; it
impairs ecology and people's right of natural resources. The entire process of setting up and
functioning of mining operation require utmost good faith and honesty on the part of the
intending entrepreneur.5
Thus, the endeavour of undertaking mining operations are to begoverned not only by the principles of environmental protection in the Constitution but also
with the added burden of utmost good and honesty due to its inherent dangerous nature.
1.4 In the instant matter projects undertaken were open pit and underground mines for extractionof uranium ore.
6These processes are inherently known to have an adverse impact on the
3Subhash Kumarv. State of Bihar, [1991] 1 SCR 5.
4
[2004] 3 SCR 126.5M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [2004] 3 SCR 126.
6Page 2, Paragraph 1 of the Fact Sheet.
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
12/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 2 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
environment due to the complete destruction of the habitat, flora and fauna as large tracts of
land are cut into for the purpose of exploration and extraction of minerals. Therefore, such
projects must be undertaken only after making complete investigations that satisfactorily
conclude that there will be an overall positive impact of the project. In the instant matter itcannot reasonably be said that complete and satisfactory investigations were undertaken
taking into account facts such as the submission of the report of the Joint High Level Expert
Committee within 2 months and the association of its members with the ROFL.7
1.5 It is humbly submitted that it must be kept in mind that the timing of this policy decision wasrather incredulous. The decision was taken around the same time that other countries were
phasing out their nuclear programs due some nuclear disasters. In light of such disasters such
a decision shows lack of good faith and can be called hasty and premature. If there is a
concern over the safety of nuclear power projects in countries where the technology has
existed longer, it would only be prudent to take a step back rather than a step forward in ones
own country.
1.6 It is reverentially submitted that apart from less than favourable sequence of events in theimplementation of the disputed Government Policy, the Keeri Report made public in
November 2010 makes it clear that the decision was also harmful to the environment in the
long run. The report gave findings of two years of research revealing that there had been
damage to the marine ecosystem, pollution in large water bodies and a decrease in the
number of Olive Ridley Turtles in the coast.8
Further cause for concern was the finding that
the power plants fell within the Seismic Zone II.9
It cannot be denied that there must be a
balancing of developmental and environmental needs. This is very aptly contained in the
concept of sustainable development. This Court has previously defined sustainable
development to mean the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be
sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation, in these matters, the required
standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided
in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's" test.10
It is evident that from the facts
brought forth by the Keeri Report that the guiding principle of sustainable development has
not been followed as there has been great loss to the environment due to the mining activities.
7 Page 2, Paragraphs 2 and 3.8
Page 4, Paragraph 2.9Ibid.
10Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 408.
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
13/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 3 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
Such factual evidence of the impact of the projects vindicates the allegation that the decision
taken by the Government was not justified.
1.7 Making reference to the prevalent legal duties towards the environment, rights regarding theenvironment and the facts of the instant case it is submitted that the action of the Government
in setting up the uranium mines and power plant was premature and unjustified.
2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THEENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF THE MINING AND POWER PLANT ACTIVITIES?
2.1 It is submitted that the Government can be held liable for the damage to the environmentbecause of the mining and power plant activities.
2.2 It is submitted that as mentioned earlier the Government is duty bound to endeavour toprotect and improve the environment. For the sake of specificity and clarity this
Constitutional duty has been incorporated in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957 as well. Section 18(1) of the Act is aimed towards Mineral
Development wherein it is stated that It shall be the duty of the Central Government to take
all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and systematic development of
minerals in India and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any
pollution which may be caused by prospecting or mining operations. The Government has
been empowered to make rules that are in furtherance of this duty. The subject matter of
these rules is stated in Section 18(2). Section 18(3) further provides that All rules made
under this section shall be binding on the Government. making it clear that the Government
must not only regulate the acts of persons involved in mining operations but also regulate
itself on the same standard in cases where mining operations are undertaken by the
Government itself.
2.3 It is submitted that the rules in this respect have been laid down in the Minerals Conservationand Development Rules, 1988 of which the relevant rules concerning the environment are in
Chapter V. The rules pertaining to the protection and conservation of the natural environment
in the course of mining operations are not merely directory rather they are mandatory in
nature. This can be asserted with a certainty as can be seen from the usage of the word shall
in rules ranging from protection to restoration of environment. Further Rule 58 lays down a
strict penalty for those who contravene with the rules of two years imprisonment or fine
extending to fifty thousand rupees or both. In view of Section 18(3) there is no doubt that the
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
14/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 4 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
rules for mineral conservation are applicable to the Government as well, including the penalty
provision. In light of these provisions it is submitted that the Government can be held liable
to for damage caused to the environment due to the mining and power plant activities.
3. WHETHER THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT 201211, SECTION 5 INPARTICULAR, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of India that Section 5 of the Act is
indeed unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of
Dasoi. The same shall be proved through subsequent arguments.
3.1 THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 213.1.1 It is humbly submitted that Section 5 of the Act states as follows:
5. (1) An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage where such
damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to-
(i) a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character; or
(ii) an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism.
(2) An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage caused to-
(i) the nuclear installation itself and any other nuclear installation including a
nuclear installation under construction, on the site where such installation is
located; and
(ii) to any property on the same site which is used or to be used in connection
with any such installation; or
(iii) to the means of transport upon which the nuclear material involved was
carried at the time of nuclear incident:
Provided that any compensation liable to be paid by an operator for a nuclear
damage shall not have the effect of reducing the amount of his liability in
respect of any other claim for damage under any other law for the time being
in force.
(3) Where any nuclear damage is suffered by a person on account of his own
negligence or from his own acts of commission or omission, the operator shall
not be liable to such person.
It is amply clear that the section aims to hedge the responsibilities of the Operator in certain
situations, i.e natural disasters, armed conflict etc. This implies that the act has not
incorporated the Absolute Liability or Polluter Pays principles that provide no defences to
corporations for the damage caused by them even in cases where the has been due diligence
or a high standard of care.
11Hereinafter referred to as the Act
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
15/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 5 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
3.1.2 It is humbly submitted that The precautionary Principal necessitates that if there are
reasonable scientific grounds for believing that a process, product or technology may not besafe then the industry must not be allowed to proceed ahead unless that industry or
establishment is able to demonstrate reasonable certainty of no harm. This principle can also
be applied to existing technologies when new evidence appears suggesting that they are less
safe than what the society had previously expected, as has been in the case of tobacco,
greenhouse gases, chloro-floro carbons, genetically modified food etc. This Honble Court in
A. P. Pollution Control Boardv. M V Nayudu12
, held that precautionary principle is part of
the law of the land. The principle mandates that when a new technology or process can cause
serious and irreversible harm to human health and the environment, precautionary measures
should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically.
3.1.3 It is submitted that Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. Even low intensity radiation
termed safe by the respondents in instances of radiation leakages, can cause irriversible
genetic alterations in the human body and the long-termimplications of it have not yet been
fully understood, as evident from a scientific article published in The Hindu on September
15, 2011 by K.S. Parthasarathy, Raja Ramanna Fellow in Department of Atomic Energy
which states The findings of the present study emphasize that a level of radiation exposure
considered safe' by regulatory standards can induce profound biochemical and cellular
adaptation.
3.1.4 Further, the argument used by the proponents of nuclear energy that nuclear power is free
from carbon-emissions is baseless as is conclusively demonstrated in an article written byeminent energy researcher Prof. Benjamin Sovacoolwhere he records the carbon-emission
cost of construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and finally plant
decommissioning that are all part of the lifecycle emissions of a nuclear plant.
3.1.5 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the official international organization
which is seen as a proponent of nuclear energy, did a study of 582 uranium mines and
deposits world-wide in 2001. Even IAEA was forced to acknowledge the severe shortage of
12(1999) 2 SCC 718
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
16/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 6 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
uranium and it stated As we look into the future, presently known resources fall short of
demandit will become necessary to rely on very high cost conventional or unconventional
resources to meet demand as lower cost known resources are exhausted. The Government
does not seem to have learnt a lesson from Fukushima, Chernobyl or the Three Mile Islandaccidents and has also ignored cost-benefit calculations forgetting the experience of infamous
Enron power project. The promotion of nuclear power on a massive scale at huge cost to the
exchequer is a classic example as to how the Governments policy gets disconnected from
concern for public welfare and gets corrupted and subverted by extraneous considerations and
corporate pressures. It is to be noted that each nuclear power plant has a life span of about
40 years after which it has to be decommissioned and decontaminated at exorbitant cost
running into thousands of crores of rupees.
3.1.6 It is thus amply clear from all of the above that Nuclear Energy is not a viable long term
alternative, one that is prone to disasters and one that can be harmful to the public in its safest
forms. Keeping all of this in mind, there is a clear violation of the fundamental right to a
clean environment as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of Dasoi. In a catena of
cases, such as N.D Jayal and Anr. v. Union of India as well as M.C Mehta v. Union of
India13
, it has been reiterated that the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental
right. In different context, the right to development is also declared as a component of Article
21 in cases like Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , and in Madhu Kishore v. State of
Bihar. Through excessive expenditure of public money in developing Nuclear Energy, which
as explained above is a non viable source of energy, it is submitted there the Right to
Development of Indian citizens is also being impeded.
3.2 THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 143.2.1 It is reverentially put forth that the Governments plans fordevelopment and expansion of the
nuclear power programme and construction of newer and huge nuclear power plants without
undertaking a thorough safety and comparative cost-benefit analysis, clearly made under
the influence of foreign countries and multi-billion dollar nuclear industry, shows arbitrary
decision-making, based on extraneous considerations and non-application of mind. The same
is in violation of Article 14 the Constitution of India. This is clear from the fact that even the
approval of the committee was done by member who had at some point been involved with
13W.P. Number 295 of 1992
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
17/19
-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 7 of14
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
the ROFL government. Also, the approval was granted in a very short span of 2 months,
which is paltry with respect to the magnitude of the project being undertaken.
3.2.2 Public hearings, that are mandatory under law before an environment clearance is given,
have not been properly conducted and the strong opposition of large local populations hasbeen ignored. The same is arbitrary, defeats the objective of mandatory public hearings and
violates Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by this very court
that arbitrary and capricious actions are in violation of the Constitution of Dasoi14
.
4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE NUCLEAR ORDER CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IS VOID?It is simply put forth that this merely an extension of the previous issue. Since the Act itself,
Section 5 in particular, is void, it is but obvious that any order passed under the act also be
held void.
14Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Anr., 2004 3 SCC 214
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
18/19
-PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page 8
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -
PP RR AA YY EE RR FF OO RR RR EE LL II EE FF
WWHHEERREEFFOORREE IINN TTHHEE LLIIGGHHTT OOFF TTHHEE IISSSSUUEESS RRAAIISSEEDD,, AARRGGUUMMEENNTT AADDVVAANNCCEEDD,, RREEAASSOONNSS GGIIVVEENN AANNDD
AAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS CCIITTEEDD,, TTHHIISSHHOONNBBLLEECCOOUURRTT MMAAYY BBEE PPLLEEAASSEEDD TTOO::
II.. DDEECCLLAARREETTHHAATT TTHHEE TTHHEE DDEECCIISSIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT TTOO SSEETT UUPP UURRAANNIIUUMM
MMIINNEESS AANNDD NNUUCCLLEEAARR PPLLAANNTTSS JJUUSSTTIIFFIIEEDD
IIII.. DDEECCLLAARREE TTHHAATT TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT CCAANN BBEE HHEELLDD LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORR TTHHEE DDAAMMAAGGEE TTOO
TTHHEE EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF TTHHEE MMIINNIINNGG AANNDD PPOOWWEERR PPLLAANNTT AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS
IIIIII.. DDEECCLLAARREETTHHAATT TTHHEECCIIVVIILLLLIIAABBIILLIITTYY OOFFNNUUCCLLEEAARRDDAAMMAAGGEEAACCTT22001100,,SSEECCTTIIOONN
55 IINN PPAARRTTIICCUULLAARR,, IISS UUNNCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL
IIVV.. DDEECCLLAARREE TTHHAATT TTHHEE OORRDDEERR PPAASSSSEEDD BBYY TTHHEE NNUUCCLLEEAARR OORRDDEERR CCLLAAIIMMSS
CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN IISS VVOOIIDD
AANNDD AANNYY OOTTHHEERR RREELLIIEEFF TTHHAATT TTHHIISSHHOONNBBLLEE CCOOUURRTT MMAAYY BBEE PPLLEEAASSEEDD TTOO GGRRAANNTT IINN TTHHEE
IINNTTEERREESSTTSS OOFF JJUUSSTTIICCEE,, EEQQUUIITTYY AANNDD GGOOOODD CCOONNSSCCIIEENNCCEE
AALLLL OOFFWWHHIICCHHIISSRREESSPPEECCTTFFUULLLLYYSSUUBBMMIITTTTEEDD..
-
7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited
19/19
-PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page 9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
CCOOUUNNSSEELLSS FFOORR TTHHEEPPEETTIITTIIOONNEERRSS