Memo regarding rights of tribal people, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Constitutional Law

Download Memo regarding rights of tribal people and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 2 TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT

• 1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION S.NO TITLE Pg. No
• 2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4 -
     • a. STATUTES
     • b. CONVENTION
     • c. INDIAN CASES 4 -
     • d. RULES, REGULATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS
     • e. LEGAL DATABASE
• 3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
• 4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
• 5. ISSUES RAISED
• 6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10 -
• 7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12 -
  • ISSUE I 12 -
  • ISSUE II 19 –
  • ISSUE III 22 –
  • ISSUE IV 27 -
  • ISSUE V 32 -
  • ISSUE VI 35 -
• 8. Prayer 38 -

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

S.NO TITLE

1. THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986

2. THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS

(RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006

3. PANCHAYATS (EXTENSION TO SCHEDULED AREAS) ACT, 1996 (PESA)

4. THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967

5. THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT,

CONVENTIONS

S.NO TITLE

1. RAMSAR CONVENTION(1971)

2. CONVENTION ON BIODIVERSITY(1992)

3. UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE

CHANGE(1992)

INDIAN CASES

S.NO CAUSE TITLE

1. CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1988 SC 107

2. A.P.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD V. PROF. M.V. NAYUDU(RETD.), 1999 (2)

SCC 718

3. VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA ,1996(5) SCC 647

4. STATE OF U.P. & ORS V. BABU RAM UPADHAYA ,AIR 1961 SC 751

5. M.C.MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2008 ,AIR SCW 4015

6. JAGANNATH V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS ,AIR 1997 SC 811

7. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION V. MOEFCC (2013), [2013] 6 S.C.R. 881

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 5 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

8. HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR V. UNION OF INDIA ,AIR 2019 SC 318.

9. ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD V. ROHIT PRAJAPATI ,AIR 2020 SC 445.

10. MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR VS THE CHIIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, 1978

AIR 851.

11. LAFARGE UMIAM MINING PVT. LTD. V. & UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 2011 AIR

12. P.G. GUPTA V. STATE OF GUJARAT, 1995 (SUPP – 2) SCC 182

13. BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM V. STATE OF UP AND OTHERS, 1987 AIR 374.

14. SAMATA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AIR 1997 SC 3297

15. SUBHASH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1991 SC 420

16. SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA V. CHAIRMAN, AIR 2005 SC 2021

17. BACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1982 SC 1325

18. HARANYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. DROPADIDEVI, (2005)9 SCC 514

19. OM KUMAR V. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 1325

20. OLGA TELLIS& ORS., V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, 1985 SCR SUPP (2) 51

21. K. GURUPRASADRAO V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS., 2013 INDLAW SC 628

22. DIVYA PHARMACY V UNION OF INDIA, 2018 SCC ONLINE UTT. 1035

23. PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA, 1997 (3) SCC 433.

24. NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA ,AIR 2000 SC 3751

25. ROMESH THAPPAR VS THE STATE OF MADRAS, 1950 AIR 124

26. EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (PRIVATE) LTD. V THE UNION OF INDIA,[1959] 1 S.C.R.

27. RAMILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA,(2012) 5

SCC 1

28. A.K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS, AIR 1950 SC 27

29. PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA (2004), AIR 2004 SC 1442

30. TIRUPUR DYEING FACTORY ASSOCIATION VS. NOYYAL RIVER AYACUT DARS

PROTECTION ASSOCIATION & ORS,(2009) 9 SCC 737

31. K.M. CHINAPPA V UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 724

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 7 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant have approached this Hon’ble Supreme court by the Special Leave Petition Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and under Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.The Counsel for appellant has endorsed our pleadings before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India. The Petitioner have approached this Hon’ble Supreme court by writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking protection of their cultural and livelihood rights under Article 21 guaranteed under part III as a fundamental right. The Counsel for petitioner has endorsed our pleadings before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India.

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 8 SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT:

The Union Government of India, in collaboration with Sunrise Energy Corporation (SEC), a multinational renewable energy company, launched the Green Galaxy Project in Tamil Nadu. The project seeks to: a) Generate 15 GW of solar power, contributing significantly to India’s renewable energy goals. b) Reduce India’s carbon footprint by 10 million metric tons annually. c) Provide electricity to 5 million households and create 20,000 jobs. ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN IMPACT ● Cultural and Economic Dependence: The region supports 20,000 local residents, including Irula and Kattunayakan tribal communities, fisherfolk, and small-scale farmers. The wetland also contains the ancient Vellai Vinayagar Temple, protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND APPROVALS ● In March 2024, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) granted environmental clearance (EC) for the project under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. ● The EC relied on an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by EcoSync Solutions, a consultancy hired by SEC. ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS ● Public protests against the project led to the arrest of activists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), raising concerns about freedom of expression. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ● The National Green Tribunal (NGT) suspended the project’s EC, citing procedural lapses. SEC appealed the NGT’s decision to the Supreme Court of India, asserting the project’s importance for renewable energy goals. ● Concurrently, the Irula community filed a separate petition, seeking protection of their cultural and livelihood rights under Article 21.

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 - Whether the environmental clearance granted to the Green Galaxy Project violates Indian environmental laws, including the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble supreme court of India is that the environmental clearance granted to the Green Galaxy Project does not violates Indian environmental laws, as the green galaxy project obtained the EC accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. ISSUE 2 - Whether the fast-tracking of the project under the National Green Energy Mission (NGEM) violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice. The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble supreme court of India is that fast-tracking of the project under the National Green Energy Mission (NGEM) violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice. ISSUE 3 - Whether the displacement of local communities violates their rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble supreme court of India is that the displacement of local communities violates their rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ISSUE 4 - Whether the project violates India’s obligations under international treaties, including the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble supreme court of India is that the project violates India’s obligations under international treaties, including the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ISSUE 5 - Whether the invocation of UAPA against protestors infringes upon their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21. The counsel for the appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble supreme court of India is that the invocation of UAPA against protestors does not infringes upon their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21. ISSUE 6 - How should the principle of sustainable development and intergenerational equity be applied in balancing renewable energy goals with ecological and social justice? The counsel for the appellant humbly submitted before the Hon’ble supreme court of India is that the Green Galaxy Project balances renewable energy goals with ecological and social justice, complying with sustainable development and intergenerational equity principles.

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 13 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS The act clearly states that, the Central Government shall have the power to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.^3 Such power of central government includes to regulate industrial activities to prevent environmental degradation and also ensuring that projects comply with environmental norms and taking necessary measures to protect and promote the environment and climate in the broader public interest. Hence such objectives of the act correlates to the intention behind the Green galaxy project’s renewable energy goal. The Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA) was enacted to safeguard and improve the environment while ensuring sustainable development. The Green Galaxy Project, which focuses on renewable energy production, aligns with the objectives of the EPA by promoting environmental protection, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and fostering economic growth. 1.1.2 Renewable energy goals of green galaxy project. By generating 15 GW of solar energy , 15 GW (gigawatts) To put this into perspective, One gigawatt-hour (GWh) is equal to 1 million kWh. So, typically in US , a power plant with a capacity of 1 GW could power approximately 876,000 households for one year if they collectively consume 10,000 kWh each, assuming the plant operates continuously throughout the year^4 , depending on energy consumption. It is equal to the total electricity consumption of a medium-sized country like Belgium or the Netherlands Efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of products, includes climate change mitigation. Climate change mitigation actions include conserving energy and replacing fossil fuels with clean energy sources. Current climate change mitigation policies are insufficient as they would still result in global warming of about 2.7 °C by 2100,^5 significantly above the 2015 Paris Agreement's^6 goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C. The Green Galaxy Project helps in reducing reliance on fossil fuels, which aligns with India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. (^3) Section 3(1) of Environmental protection Act,1986. (^4) Article by Zach stein,Gigawatt(GW),carbon collective.co (^5) CO2 & Green house gas emission by Ritchie,Hannah,Roser max, ourworldindata.org (^6) Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 14 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS Hence, Reduction of 10 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions annually supports the EPA’s goal of preventing environmental pollution. 1.1.3 Preventive actions taken to mitigate Environmental Impact. The central government has the authority to impose restrictions on specific areas where certain industries, operations, or processes cannot be carried out or can only be conducted with specific safeguards.^7 This power is exercised to prevent environmental harm, particularly in ecologically sensitive zones, protected areas, and regions prone to pollution or degradation. The Green Galaxy Project complies with this provision by implementing proper mitigation measures, ensuring that environmental damage is minimized while promoting renewable energy. As it has been held in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) 8 the court relied upon the precautionary principle and stated that wherever possible measure is available to avoid any damage to the environment must be taken into consideration before any damage is actually cause. This prevents the haste for a cure when the damage is caused to the environment. It is also to be noted that the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted only after ensuring necessary precautionary actions. 1.1.4 No emission or discharge of environmental pollutants EPA insists that No person carrying on any industry, operation or process shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or emitted any environmental pollutant in excess or such standards as may be prescribed.^9 The EPA aims to prevent environmental degradation caused by industrial pollution. Generally , Solar energy technologies and power plants do not produce air pollution or greenhouse gases when operating. Using solar energy can have a positive, indirect effect on the environment when solar energy replaces or reduces the use of other energy sources that have larger effects on the environment.^10 The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 11 held that the precautionary principle and the polluters pay principle are essential features of sustainable development and it is part of Indian law, which means balancing (^7) Section 3(2)(v) of Environmental protection Act,1986. (^8) 1999 (2) SCC 718 (^9) Section 7 of Environmental Protection Act, (^10) US Energy information Administartion. (^11) 1996(5) SCC 647

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 16 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS 1.2.1. Does Solar power plant requires EC? It is to be noted that Solar Power Plants are not specifically mentioned under Schedule 1 of the Notification. They have minimal environmental impact, require fewer natural resources, do not involve extraction, emissions, or pollution, and are considered sustainable projects. Since they do not significantly harm the environment, EC was not originally required for such projects. Hence there is no prior requirement of EC for solar power plant, as per EIA notifications rule, 1.2.3. Does solar power plant to be implemented by green galaxy project requires EC? A Solar Power Plant does not automatically require EC under the statutory framework of the EIA Notification, 2006. Unlike thermal or hydroelectric power plants, which involve coal mining, dam construction, or heavy resource extraction, Solar Power Plants have a low environmental footprint. By analyzing we can understand that solar power is considered clean and environmentally friendly, and the land usage is minimal, with minimal to no polluting emissions. Also it is to be mentioned that any project planned in an ecologically sensitive area must obtain a valid EC, as mandated by the EIA Notification, 2006 which evaluates potential ecological impacts and necessary safeguard and Compliance with these norms helps protect sensitive ecosystems while enabling sustainable development. 1.2.4. EC obtained as per EIA notifications, Although solar power plants generally do not require EC , the green galaxy project necessitates EC due to the vast land area involved and the ecologically sensitive nature of the site, ensuring proper environmental assessment and compliance. Here the green galaxy project was granted with a proper EC from the MoEFCC. The approval was based on an EIA report as required by the EIA Notification, 2006 that any agency as may be notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change from time to time shall be allowed to prepare the Environmental Impact Assessment report based on that EC to be given^16. The assessment ensured compliance with legal and environmental standards where the project’s potential impact was evaluated, and necessary mitigation measures were proposed. This validates the legitimacy and due process of the EC approval. (^16) 13 of EIA Notifications,

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 17 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS The involvement of the Union of India in this and The EC being granted by the Central Government which is MoEFCC reinforces the legitimacy of the approval process. The clearance was issued in compliance with the EIA Notification 2006, ensuring adherence to environmental norms. The approval of EC by MoEFCC, based on the EIA Report prepared and reviewed through due process, confirms full compliance with the EIA Notification, 2006. Since the Ministry itself granted the clearance, the process remains legally sound, with no procedural violations, ensuring the EC’s validity. 1.3. The Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 was established to recognize and grant forest rights to Scheduled Tribes (STs) and traditional forest dwellers. Section 5 of the FRA empowers forest communities to protect wildlife, biodiversity, and water resources. However, since the project focuses on renewable energy, it aligns with sustainable environmental goals rather than causing destruction. It primarily focuses on protecting critical wildlife habitats in National Parks and Sanctuaries. These areas are identified and protected for wildlife conservation purposes, ensuring that any development activities do not harm wildlife. However, the Kaveri Wetland , where the Green Galaxy Project is proposed, does not fall under the FRA’s definition of critical wildlife habitat. While it may be ecologically significant, it is not legally designated as a critical wildlife habitat. The FRA allows the diversion of forest land for government-managed projects that serve public interests. These projects can include non-conventional source of energy, such as solar and wind energy projects. This is specifically mentioned in Section 3(2)(j) of the Act. Since solar energy is categorized as a non-conventional energy source, the Green Galaxy Project falls within the scope of permissible development under the FRA. It still requires approval from the Gram Sabha (local village council).The Gram Sabha has a role to play in safeguarding the customary and religious rights of STs and other TFDs under the Forest Rights Act^17. EC has been obtained by the MoEFCC which ensures that the local community’s concerns are addressed and that they consent to the land diversion. The Green Galaxy Project is in line with the provisions of the FRA, provided it receives the necessary community approval and adheres to environmental and (^17) Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEFCC (2013)

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 19 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS ISSUE 2 - Whether the fast-tracking of the project under the National Green Energy Mission (NGEM) violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice. It is humbly submitted on behalf of appellant before this Hon’ble supreme court of India is that the fast-tracking of the project under the National Green Energy Mission (NGEM) does not violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice. Given the urgency to reduce carbon emissions and transition to renewable energy in current state, the project’s fast-tracking is justified as it aligns with national priorities for energy security and climate change mitigation. 2.1.Fast tracking for a valid reason. Fast-tracking is a schedule compression method used in project management to shorten the project timeline considering the importance of the project. This allows project managers to meet tight deadlines without sacrificing the project scope. The Green galaxy project was expedited under the National Green Energy Mission (NGEM), which emphasizes the importance of renewable energy projects for national development. An EC was granted following a comprehensive EIA, which is a mandatory requirement. The EIA was conducted by EcoSync Solutions, a recognized expert agency, ensuring technical accuracy and reliability. In the case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019),^19 the Supreme Court emphasized that any procedural lapses in public hearings could invalidate ECs. However, in this instance, all due processes were duly followed, ensuring that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the project approval process. In the case of Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) ,^20 The Court held that ex post facto environmental clearances undermine environmental governance and violate principles of natural justice. The Green Galaxy Project, however, secured environmental clearance through the standard procedure before project initiation, demonstrating compliance with procedural fairness as underscored in this case. 2.2.National Interest and Urgency of Renewable Energy Goals: (^19) AIR 2019 SC 318. (^20) AIR 2020 SC 445.

Memorial for Appellant/Petitioner P a g e | 20 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS The Green Galaxy Project, by generating 15 GW of solar power thereby reducing India’s carbon footprint by 10 million metric tons annually, plays a critical role achieving India’s ambitious renewable energy targets, especially focusing on solar power generation. India's recognition of environmental protection as a national interest, enshrined in its Constitution and reflected in policies and legislation, provides a solid foundation for the government's commitment to both environmental conservation and sustainable development. This national interest serves as a key rationale for fast-tracking projects, especially those aimed at advancing climate goals and improving renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar farms. Under Part IV of Indian constitution Article 48(A) of Indian Constitution. requires the state to protect and improve the environment, as well as to safeguard forests and wildlife^21. This foundational principle establishes the environment as a critical national priority. With climate change becoming an ever-increasing global threat, the rapid deployment of renewable energy infrastructure such as solar farms aligns with these constitutional obligations by helping mitigate climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and decrease dependence on fossil fuels. The urgency of tackling climate change justifies fast-tracking projects like solar farms, as they contribute to achieving India’s environmental goals. Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution highlights the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.^22 This collective responsibility underscores the importance of national efforts toward environmental conservation, making it a priority for the state to implement and support projects that enhance the country’s renewable energy capacity. The court emphasised on the significance of the Constitutional provisions highlighting Articles 19(1)(g), 48A, 51A(g),32 and 226 in the realm of environmental law. It held that it is not only the responsibility of the citizens, but also the obligation of the states and all other state organs and authorities including the judiciary to protect the environment and its entities and take necessary steps to prevent, attack and remedy the losses caused due to rapid development^23. This principle justifies the fast-tracking of projects like National Green Energy Mission (NGEM), as it (^21) Article 48(A): Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country (^22) Article 51(A)g: to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; (^23) T. Damodar Rao v S.O Municipal Co-operation Hyderabad (AIR 1987 AP 171)