Memorial of Petitioner

2ND CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW (CAIL) NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2022
2ND CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

(CAIL) NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2022
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. _____ / 2021
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum

BEFOREfor the petition filed before this honorable
THE
court. The petition HONOURABLE
invokes SUPREME
its write jurisdiction COURT
under OFof
article 32 MAYFAIR
the constitution of India. It
sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based
Civil Appeal No. ____ /2021

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950; read with
Order XXI, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 2013)
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK

APPELLANT 1
&
SOCIETY OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
APPELLANT 2
V.
UNION OF MAYFAIR
RESPONDENT 1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)
[1]
COMPETITION 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Table of Authorities
 Constitution …………………………………………………………………………. 4
 Statue ………………………………………………………………………………... 4
 Cases ………………………………………………………………………………… 4
 Books and Articles …………………………………………………………………... 5
Statement of Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………………………...
6
Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………………………….
7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES: …………………………………………………………………9
1. Whether the Constitution of Mayfair guarantees the absolute right to live in a
pollution free environment vis-à-vis the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
Mayfair?...................................................................................................................................
2. Whether a complete ban should be granted on the manufacture and sale of all
passenger motor vehicles, either in the present or in the
future?..........................................................................................................................
3. Whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of Mayfair in as much it imposes different standards for
regular automobile manufacturers vis-à-vis EV manufacturers?
…………………………..
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Mayfair has the power to extend the timeline set by
the government of Mayfair for the implementation of the MS-VI norms. If yes,
whether the same should be
extended?....................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: …………………………………………………………. 11
1. Whether the Constitution of Mayfair guarantees the absolute right to live in a pollution
free environment vis-à-vis the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
Mayfair?......................................................................................................................... 11
2. Whether a complete ban should be granted on the manufacture and sale of all passenger
motor vehicles, either in the present or in the future? ………………………………… 11
3. Whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of Mayfair in as much it imposes different standards for regular
automobile manufacturers vis-à-vis EV manufacturers? ……………………………... 12
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Mayfair has the power to extend the timeline set by the
government of Mayfair for the implementation of the MS-VI norms. If yes, whether the
same should be extended? …………………………………………………………….. 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………….
pollution free environment vis-à-vis the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of Mayfair? …………………………………………………………… 14
[2]
COMPETITION 2022
 The constitution of Mayfair guarantees right to live in a pollution free
environment ………………………………………………………………... 14
 The states responsibility with regard to environment under article 48(A) …. 15
 Relation of fundamental rights and directive principles …………………… 16
 The citizens responsibility with regard to environment under article 51 (A)(g)
…………………………………………………………………………16
2. Whether a complete ban should be granted on the manufacture and sale of all passenger
motor vehicles, either in the present or in the future? ……………………………….18
 The said ban is not in breach of Article 19(1)(g) …………………………….18
 The states responsibility with regard to environment under article 48(A) .......19
 The proposition is not ultra vires to the constitution or not violative of article 19
(1)(g), article 25 and 301 …………………………………………………….19
3. Whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of Mayfair in as much it imposes different standards for regular
automobile manufacturers vis-à-vis EV manufacturers? …………………………….21
 The doctrine of reasonable classification made on the basis of intelligible
differentia ……………………………………………………………………21
 Amendments made by the government in MORTH Central motor vehicles rules,
1989 ……………………………………………………………….................23
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Mayfair has the power to extend the timeline set by the
government of Mayfair for the implementation of the MS-VI norms. If yes, whether the
same should be extended? …………………………………………………………25
 The need to extend the timeline ………………………………………….25
 Article 21 and its violation ……………………………………………….26
 Rapid transition is not the way forward ………………………………….26
Prayer ……………………………………………………………………………………...28
[3]
COMPETITION 2022
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION:
S.NO NAME
1. Constitution of Mayfair
2. Constitution of India
STATUES:
S.NO NAME
1. The Environment Protection Act, 1972
2. Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
CASES:
S.NO NAME CITATIONS
1. Damodar Rao vs S.O Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 AP (171)
2. Subhash Kumar vs state of Bihar &Ors AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5
3. Mc Mehta vs Union of India AIR 1987 SCR (1) 965
4. Sachidanand Pandey & Ors vs the State of West AIR 1987 SC 1109
Bengal & Ors
5. A.P Pollution Control board vs Professor M.V. AIR 1999 SC 812
Nayudu
6. Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala AIR 1996 Ker 329
7. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388
8. Arjun Gopal & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO. 728 OF 2015
9. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India

& Ors
10. State of Bihar v. Murad Ali, AIR 1, 1988 SCR
11. Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan AIR, 1958

12. Food Corporation of India V. Kamdhenu Cattle
Feed Industries
13. Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice S.R Tendolkar, AIR, 1958 SCR 279
14. Maganlal Chhaganlal Pvt Ltd V. municipal , 1974 AIR 2009, 1975
corporation of Gr. Bombay SCR (1) 1
15. State of Bombay v. FN Balsara-V AIR 1951 SC 318

16. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR
Supl (2)
[4]
COMPETITION 2022
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
S.NO NAME
1. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY 1009
(BRYAN A. GARNER ED., 9TH EDN., 2009
2. A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 214 (2008
3. BASU, D.D. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (LEXIS-NEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS, WADHWA AND NAGPUR, NEW DELHI 2008) 3465
4. SEEGER, ELIZABETH,1889-1973. (1969). THE RAMAYANA. NEW YORK

:W.R. SCOTT
5. JOSEPHE. STIGLITZ, MAKINGNATURAL RESOURCES INTO A BLESSING

RATHER THAN A CURSE, IN "COVERINGOIL" ED. SVETLANATSALIK AND
ANYA SCHIFFRIN, OPEN SOCIETYINSTITUTE (2005), P. 13-14
6. JOHN LOCKE, ‘SECOND TREATISE’IN PETERLASLETT (ED), TWO

TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT (CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITYPRESS, 1988)
265, 288–289
7. IMMANUEL KANT, LECTURES ONETHICS (LOUISINFIELD, TRANS, HARPER
TORCHBOOKS,1963) 239 –40
[5]
COMPETITION 2022
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. _____ / 2021
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this honorable
court. The petition invokes its write jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution of India. It
sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
[6]
COMPETITION 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Mayfair is a fast-developing country. The present environmental problems in Mayfair, are a
threat to the well-being of its citizens. Overpopulation and the ensuing overuse of scarce
resources have put pressure on the environment. Mayfair suffers from severe air pollution
caused by road dust and industry, with comparatively smaller contributions from unclean
engines in transportation, especially diesel-powered city buses and trucks, and two-wheelers
and three-wheelers with two-stroke engines.
2) Mayfair has a total of 6 cities that are counted amongst the 100 most polluted cities in the
world. Sunflower, the sixth-most populated metropolis in the world and the capital state of
Mayfair is one of the most heavily polluted cities in Mayfair, having for instance one of the
country's highest volumes of particulate matter pollution. This was corroborated by an
announcement by the World Health Organization, that Sunflower was the second most polluted
city in the world.
3) Mayfair is also known to be the world’s fourth-largest automobile market. The contribution
of the automobile sector to the overall GDP of Mayfair stands at 7.1% and 49% of the
manufacturing GDP.
4) In 2016, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) issued a notification
providing for Mayfair Stage (MS) VI emission standards for all major on-road vehicle
categories. This announcement was supported by corresponding actions taken by the Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas to ensure a nationwide supply of MS VI fuel along with the
proposed MS-VI emission standard implementation date of April 1, 2020. This came at a time
when many Mayfair cities are struggling with severe air-quality problems. However, the time
frame prescribed by the government to make this switch is considered to be one of the toughest
in the world.
5) In 2014, a committee formulated by the ministry had in its report – Auto Fuel Vision Policy
2025 recommended the implementation of the Mayfair Emission Standards which are based on
the European regulations in a staggered manner. It had recommended the implementation of
MS-VI by the year 2024 throughout the country. However, given the levels of air pollution in
the country, the Mayfair Government decided to leapfrog MS V level emission standards
completely and move directly to the more stringent and robust MS VI level.
[7]
COMPETITION 2022
6) In 2018, MoRTH amended the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to provide that certain
category of motor vehicles conforming to the MS-IV Emission Standard shall not be allowed
to be sold and registered after the 30th September 2020.
7) The proposed MS-VI standards are far-reaching in scope and incorporate substantial changes
to existing emission standards (MS-IV). Automobile manufacturers have to make sure that they
not only minimise the amount of pollution caused by the exhaust, but also have to make sure
the overall performance and efficiency of the vehicle stays intact. Due to this, manufacturers
are now almost forced to increase their investment in Research & Development to upgrade the
existing available models and make them MS-VI compatible. This also means that the
purchasers of these vehicles will have to significantly shell out more than they would before
under the MS IV norms.
8) The Mayfair automobile industry has had one of its worst years in 2019, with passenger
vehicles sales falling by almost 20% in one quarter, the worst to happen in almost two decades.
The slump can be attributed to multiple reasons, including the slowdown in the overall
economy, the crisis in the non-banking finance sector, a liquidity crunch, and the increase in
third-party insurance and road tax in some states, and the confusion around MS-VI norms
further exacerbated by the lockdown and weak demand due to COVID19 pandemic.
9) Many manufacturers have had to either shut down their units and some foreign companies
have simply exited from Mayfair, while others have put a hold on their expansion plans. This
slowdown has also severely affected employment, with tens of thousands of workers losing
their jobs at manufacturing plants and ancillary units. In view of this, the Society of the
Automobile Manufacturer’s Association of Mayfair (SAM) made a representation to the
government of Mayfair seeking implementation of the MS-VI norms from 2024.
10) With environmental pollution concerns mounting across the world, the push for vehicles
running on alternative fuel sources has gained momentum. For the financial year 2020- 2021,
the government in its annual budget announced direct tax incentives for consumers purchasing
Electric Vehicles (EV) and also offered incentives to manufacturers under the national Faster
Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles scheme. In addition to this, many
state governments also started offering incentives to manufacturers of EVs. All of this happens
while the Mayfair government continues to raise taxes on regular four-wheeler and two-
wheeler manufacturing companies.
11) It is however pertinent to note that majority of the batteries that are used in the EVs are
imported by the EV manufacturing companies and then dumped into landfills after their use is
[8]
COMPETITION 2022
exhausted. These batteries constitute substances that if not recycled properly can cause
significant harm to both the environment and human beings. The present set of laws in Mayfair
are not adequate to provide for a cohesive set of rules for the safe disposal of EV batteries.
12) In Jan’ 2020, the Environment Action Network, a non-governmental organization, known
for its direct actions and campaigns on worldwide environmental issues, filed a public interest
litigation in the Supreme Court on Mayfair praying that a strict ban be issued on the
manufacture and sale of all passenger motor vehicles from 1st April 2020 whether the same is
compliant or not with the MS-VI emission norms.
13) Soon, SAM filed a Writ petition in the Supreme Court of Mayfair challenging the 2016
Notification and all corresponding actions taken by the government. Thereafter, the
Environment Action Network, filed an intervention application in the said Writ petition.
14) The Supreme Court of Mayfair has granted an interim injunction in favor of SAM and has
clubbed the writ and the public interest litigation to be heard and disposed of together.
[9]
COMPETITION 2022
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Constitution of Mayfair?
passenger motor vehicles, either in the present or in the future?

Article 14 of the Constitution of Mayfair in as much it imposes different standards
for regular automobile manufacturers vis-à-vis EV manufacturers?
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Mayfair has the power to extend the timeline set
by the government of Mayfair for the implementation of the MS-VI norms. If yes,
whether the same should be extended?
[10]
COMPETITION 2022
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Constitution of Mayfair?
Mayfair's constitution provides a pollution-free environment. Respectfully, Mayfair

residents' rights have been violated. Mayfair's Constitution is founded on fundamental
rights. Hence Article 21 deprivation is not legal. A. The Mayfair Constitution prohibits
pollution. Fundamental rights underpin constitutional ideology. Laws must be
constitutional and enforceable. Part IV of the Indian Constitution authorises the
government to protect the environment. Article 21 covers environmental and human
rights problems. Article 21 safeguards not just a person's existence but also their quality
of life. Article 21 requires the state to protect the rights of its citizens in the public good.
The State, which must defend individual rights and foster an article 21-friendly
environment, cannot ignore environmental depletion. Article 48A says the state must
safeguard the environment and animals, whereas Article 51 (A) (g) mandates
compassion. Article 51(A) must be implemented by legislation (g). Society strives
towards eco-friendliness. The precautionary principle states that if severe or lasting
harm is possible, the individual or organisation proposing the potentially dangerous
activity must provide proof.
passenger motor vehicles, either in the present or in the future?
The court is told that prohibiting the manufacturing and sale of passenger cars will
reduce environmental stress. Part IV of the Indian Constitution gives the state the power
to protect the environment, something the government hasn't done. Ecological and
human rights problems must be treated equally under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Said prohibition doesn't violate Article 19(1). Article 19 of the Indian Constitution isn't
absolute; the government may put acceptable boundaries. Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian
Constitution doesn't protect anti-public-interest corporations or practices. Article
19(1)(g) cannot be upheld in this case since Article 21's right to sustenance cannot be
[11]
COMPETITION 2022
denied. Article 21 deprivation of livelihood claim is tenable provided the court process
is fair, just, reasonable, and in the public interest. The limitation must be "necessary"
and "fair". Protecting human labour dignity supports the public interest as a measure of
social wellbeing." The proposal doesn't violate Article 19(1)(G), Article 25, or Article
301. The court said the 'precautionary principle' in environmental law didn't necessitate
detailed studies. The precautionary principle is part of customary international law.
Hence Indian courts must follow it. "Precautionary" implies implementing
environmental protection measures without proof. The government and other statutory
authorities must foresee, prevent, and address the causes of environmental
deterioration. Lack of scientific confidence should not be utilised to prolong preventive
steps when severe and irreparable harm is threatened. Article 301 freedom of trade
cannot equal freedom from all limitations.

Article 14 of the Constitution of Mayfair in as much it imposes different standards
for regular automobile manufacturers vis-à-vis EV manufacturers?
It is respectfully argued that applying MS VI emission regulations violates Mayfair's

constitution. The government discriminates between EV and non-EV taxpayers.
Consumers find EVs more costly than diesel or gasoline automobiles. Article 14
mandates that all Act rights and freedoms be preserved and implemented without
discrimination. It guarantees everyone equal protection and equality under the law. It's
a citizen's right and a non-right. Mayfair's current legislation are insufficient to ensure
safe disposal of EV batteries. Diesel and EV automobiles are both dangerous. The
Mayfair government raised taxes on ordinary four-wheelers and two-wheelers and
gave incentives to EV buyers. This is violative of Article 14 of the constitution of
Mayfair.
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Mayfair has the power to extend the timeline set
by the government of Mayfair for the implementation of the MS-VI norms. If yes,
whether the same should be extended?
[12]
COMPETITION 2022
Petitioners ask the court to extend the deadline for MS-VI implementation. If the same
is not extended, it would lead to job loss, which will violate the right to livelihood of
SAM personnel. They must spend a large quantity in R&D to improve their vehicles
and make them MS-VI compliant. Mayfair's economic crisis has caused a slump in the
car industry, forcing thousands of people to quit their positions in factories and
associated divisions. This breaches Mayfair's Article 21. Article 21's violation.
Mayfair's economy is recovering from an unexpected pandemic spike, and switching
from gas-powered to electric cars would violate their article 21 right to livelihood. The
petitioner wants the court to know that the shift from gas-powered to electric cars
threatens their revenue. Transitioning from gas-powered to electric cars won't happen
overnight. So, transitioning from gas-powered to electric cars would harm the
environment and contribute to its deterioration.
[13]
COMPETITION 2022
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION OF MAYFAIR GUARANTEES THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIVE

IN A POLLUTION FREE ENVIRONMENT VIS-À-VIS THE RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MAYFAIR?
1. The constitution of Mayfair provides the absolute right to live in a pollution free
environment to its citizens included under the ambit of Article 21. It is humbly submitted
before the court that the rights of the citizens of Mayfair have been violated. Right to life
and personal liberty (Art 21) is a fundamental right and no one shall be deprived of it . The
Constitution of Mayfair has been drafted upon the doctrine of Fundamental Rights and
claim to the deprivation of Article 21 is tenable in nature.
A.THE CONSTITUTION OF MAYFAIR GUARANTEES RIGHT TO LIVE IN A

POLLUTION FREE ENVIRONMENT
2. Article 21 is one the Fundamental rights provided under the constitution of Mayfair.
Fundamental rights provide the basic structure of doctrine upon which the constitution is
drafted. Laws cannot be made which violate the basic structure of doctrine of constitution
and if laws made, they are tenable in nature,
1. Part IV of the Indian Constitution gives power to the state to protect the environment which
in this scenario the govt has appropriately done so. Environmental problems must be treated
equally with human rights concerns, as both are rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Apex Court in Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation1 held that the
environmental pollution and spoliation which is slowly poisoning and polluting the
atmosphere should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
4. The Right to Pollution Free Environment was declared to be a part of Right to Life under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
1
Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1987 AP 171
[14]
COMPETITION 2022
Ors. (1991) 2. Right to Life is a Fundamental Right which includes the Right of enjoyment
of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. ‘Mayfair has a total of 6 cities that
are counted amongst the 100 most polluted cities in the world. Sunflower, the sixth-most
populated metropolis in the world and the capital state of Mayfair is one of the most heavily
polluted cities in Mayfair, having for instance one of the country's highest volumes of
particulate matter pollution. This was corroborated by an announcement by the World
3
Health Organization, that Sunflower was the second most polluted city in the world.
5. Article 21 4envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a person, which not merely
guarantees the right to continuance of a person’s existence but a quality of life, and
therefore, State is casted upon a duty to protect the rights of the citizen in discharge of its
constitutional obligation in the larger public interest guaranteed as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. The Madras High court recently invoked the “Parens Patriae Jurisdiction” and declared
Mother nature as a living being having a legal entity /juridical person, having the status of
a legal person, with all corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person, in
order to preserve and conserve them.
7. Justice S Srimathy recalled an earlier Judgment of the Uttarakhand High court, where it
had invoked “ parens patriae” jurisdiction and declared the glaciers including Gangotri and
Yamunotri rivers as legal entities to preserve and conserve them.
8. The court further said, “The past generations have handed over ‘Mother earth’ to us in its
pristine glory and we are morally bound to hand over the same in a similar fashion to the
next generation. ‘Mother nature’ is accorded the rights akin to Fundamental rights, Legal
right, Constitutional rights for its survival, safety, sustenance, and resurgence in order to
maintain its status and also to promote its health and well-being.
B. THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENT UNDER

ARTICLE 48 A
9. Article 48(A) 5of the Constitution of Mayfair which is analogous to Article 48(A) of the
Indian Constitution establishes the directive concept of environmental conservation and
2
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors, AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5
3
Lidb 2
4
INDIA CONST.art. 21
5
INDIA CONST.art.48(A)
[15]
COMPETITION 2022
enhancement, as well as the protection of forests and animals. While Article 48A is not
judicially enforceable, it may become so under the purview of Article 21's right to life. The
Supreme Court considered a public interest case about Delhi's air pollution in M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India 6(2002). Concerning Article 48A and public health, the Court issued the
following observations: Articles 39 7, 478, and 48A impose an obligation on the state to
safeguard the public health, enhance public health, and protect and improve the
environment, individually and collectively. The Supreme Court decided in Sachidanand
Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 9 (1987) that Article 48A must be
considered whenever a case involving the conservation of the ecosystem is brought before
the Court.
C. RELATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
10. Environmental protection is only achievable when all regulatory systems are adhered to the
State, which is obligated to preserve individual rights and to promote an environment
conducive to the protection of the rights granted by Article 21, cannot abdicate its
responsibility or turn a blind eye towards the depletion of the environmental resources.
11. While Article 48A expresses the State's obligation to safeguard the country's environment
and wildlife, Article 51 (A) (g) 10states the State's obligation to have compassion for living
beings. As a result, it is the State's moral obligation to enact legislation to carry out the
obligations set forth in Article 51(A) (g). Fundamental obligations are equivalent to and
have the same force as Directive Principles.
D. THE CITIZEN’S RESPONSIBILITY WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENT

UNDER ARTICLE 51(A)(g)
12. It is worthwhile to mention here that Indian society has, for many centuries, been aware
and conscious of the necessity of protecting the environment and ecology. Sages and Saints of
India lived in forests. Their preachings contained in vedas, upanishads, smiritis etc. are ample
6
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SCR (1) 965
7
INDIA CONST. art.39
8
INDIA CONST.art. 47
9
Sachidanand Pandey & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors, AIR1987 SC 1109.
10
INDIA CONST. art 51 (A) (g)
[16]
COMPETITION 2022
evidence of the society's respect for plants, trees, earth, sky, air, water and every form of life.
The main motto of social life is to live in harmony with nature. It was regarded as a sacred duty
of everyone to protect them. In those days, people worshiped trees, rivers and seas which were
treated as belonging to all living creatures. The children were educated by elders of the society
about the necessity of keeping the environment clean and protecting earth, rivers, sea, forests,
trees, flora and fauna and every species of life.
13. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu11, was referred for its proposition that
it is necessary that the party attempting to preserve a less polluted State, should not carry the
burden of proof and the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden. It was held that the
precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible
harm, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the
activity that is potentially harmful to the environment.
14. Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala12, was cited in support of the contentions that
the reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the
standpoint of the interests of general public and not from the standpoint of the interests of the
persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract consideration. It was
observed therein that a restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given
case, it operates harshly and even if the persons affected be petty traders.
11
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812
12
. Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala, AIR 1996 Ker 329
[17]
COMPETITION 2022
II. WHETHER A COMPLETE BAN SHOULD BE GRANTED ON THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES, EITHER IN
THE PRESENT OR IN THE FUTURE?
1. It is humbly submitted before the court that a blanket ban on the manufacture and
sales of passenger motor vehicles will reduce the pressure on the environment in the context of
scarce resources. It is also humbly pleaded before the court that Part IV of the Indian
Constitution gives power to the state to protect the environment which in this scenario the
government has not abided. Environmental problems must be treated equally with human rights
concerns, as both are rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution.
A. THE SAID BAN IS NOT IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 19(1)(G)

13
2. Article 19 granted under the constitution of India is not an absolute right and the
Government can impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6)14. If a particular business,
or trade practice is against the public interest the same cannot be protected under Article
19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. In this situation Article 19(1)(g) 15cannot be upheld because
the right to livelihood is a component of Article 21 and no one shall be deprived of it. However,
if a person is denied such a right pursuant to a legal process that must be fair, just, and
reasonable and must be in the public interest, the claim of deprivation of the right to livelihood
under Article 21 is tenable.
3. The limitation must be needed in the "broad public interest" and must also be a "reasonable
restriction." The court held that the phrase "in the interest of the general public" has a broad
meaning, including public order, public health, public security, morals, the economic welfare
of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution. A law providing
for basic amenities; protecting the dignity of human labour is a social welfare measure in the
general public interest." To establish the appropriateness of the limitation, consideration must
be given to the nature of the business and the conditions under which it operates
13
INDIA CONST. art. 19
14
INDIA CONST. art. 19 (6)
15
INDIA CONST .art 19(1)(g)
[18]
COMPETITION 2022
B. THE STATE’S RESPONSIBILITY WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 48(A)
4. “The present environmental problems in Mayfair are a threat to the well-being of its citizens.
Overpopulation and the ensuing overuse of scarce resources have put pressure on the
environment. Mayfair suffers from severe air pollution caused by road dust and industry, with
comparatively smaller contributions from unclean engines in transportation, especially diesel-
powered city buses and trucks, and two-wheelers and three-wheelers with two-stroke engines.”
16
states the present condition of Mayfair.
5. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors17, the need to protect natural resources in their original
integrity was emphasized. After considering the opinions of numerous renowned authors and
other countries' environmental and ecological decisions, this Court concluded that the notion
that the public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural
characteristics is permeating the law of the land.
C. THE PROPOSITION IS NOT ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(G), ARTICLE 25& ARTICLE 301
6. The court decided in Arjun Gopal & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors 18. whether the ban on
firecrackers violated businessmen's and traders' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and
Article 2519 and whether such rights supersede the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. The court noted that research undertaken by the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) indicated that cough, dyspnea, and eye problems instances increased
around Diwali.
7. The court determined that the 'precautionary principle' embodied in the country's
environmental law did not necessitate thorough analyses. The precautionary principle has been
recognized as a component of customary international law, and because it does not conflict
with our municipal rules, it must be used by Indian courts. The term 'precautionary' implies
that environmental protection measures can be applied in the absence of conclusive findings.
16
Lidb 1
17
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors, (1997) 1 SCC 388
18
Arjun Gopal & Ors. V/s Union of India & Ors
19
INDIA CONST. art.25
[19]
COMPETITION 2022
8. Concerning the 'precautionary principle,' it was held in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs
Union Of India & Ors20, that the Government and other statutory authorities must anticipate,
prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation, and where there is a threat of
serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used to justify
deferring preventative measures. The actor bears the task of demonstrating that his act is
environmentally sound.
9. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali21, the Supreme Court stated that nature and man are closely
linked. They cohabit and benefit from one another, therefore sustaining biological diversity
also means protecting human existence. Man has not spared the elephant, which is now an
endangered animal in need of both protection from killing and a chance to repopulate. To
achieve this aim, rigorous conservation measures for elephants were required
22
10. Article 301’s definition of freedom of trade cannot encompass complete independence
from all constraints. In Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan23, the Supreme Court
addressed this issue and stated: "In our view the concept of freedom of trade, commerce and
intercourse postulated by Article 301 must he understood in the context of an orderly society
and as part of a Constitution which envisages a distribution of powers between the States and
the Union, and if so understood, the concept must recognize the need and the legitimacy of
some degree of regulatory control, whether by the Union or the States; this is irrespective of
the restrictions imposed by the other articles in Part XIII of the Constitution."
20
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors
21
State of Bihar v. Murad Ali, AIR 1, 1988 SCR
22
INDIA CONST. art.301
23
Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR , 1958
[20]
COMPETITION 2022
III. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING MS VI EMISSION NORMS
IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MAYFAIR IN AS
MUCH IT IMPOSES DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR REGULAR AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURES VIS -A-VIS EV MANUFACTURERS?
1.It is humbly submitted before the court that notification implementing MS VI emission norms
is violating article 14 24of the constitution of Mayfair. The government clearly shows that the
discrimination between the tax payers of EV vehicles consumers and non-EV vehicle
consumers. The EV vehicles are more expensive than the other diesel or petrol vehicles where
the consumer finds it difficult to afford. it is also humbly noticed that Article 14 requires that
all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without
discrimination. It ensures that everyone has the right to equality before the law and equal
protection under the law. It is not only an Indian citizen's right, but also a non-right.
2.Food Corporation of India V. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 25- In this case, the doctrine
of legitimate expectations was clearly explained by the Supreme Court. The court held in this
case that the duty to act fairly on part of public authorities and entitles every citizen or person
must have legitimate expectations to be treated in fair and just manner and such an expectation
must be given due importance and such expectations of fair treatment should be satisfied. The
requirements of such fair treatment and non-arbitrariness in state action or otherwise if not
satisfied would amount to abuse of power. Further, the court also made a significant point
stating that such reasonable/legitimate expectations may not be expressly or directly
enforceable legal right but failure in taking into amount may deem a decision arbitrary in
nature. The fact that the expectations are legitimate or not must be decided on a case-to-case
basis.
A. THE DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION MADE ON THE BASIS

OF INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA
3.It is humbly submitted before the court that Article 14 forbids class legislation but not
reasonable classification. The article applies on a reasonable basis, equals are treated
differently. The article does not apply where unequal and equals are given different treatments.
24
INDIA CONST.art.14
25
Food Corporation of India V. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
[21]
COMPETITION 2022
In relevance to this point being made, reasonable classification was not applied and was denied
in the eyes of the state. “For the financial year 2020-2021 the government in its annual budget
announced direct incentives for consumers purchasing EV, but it is however pertinent to note
the majority of the batteries that are used in EVs are imported by the EV manufacturing
companies and are dumped into landfills after their use is exhausted. These batteries constitute
substances that if not recycled properly can cause significant harm to both the environment
and human beings. The present set of laws in Mayfair are not adequate to provide for a
26
cohesive set of rules for the safe disposal of EV batteries.” This being said not only diesel
vehicles are harmful but EV vehicles can equally cause harm.
4.It is humbly noted that the Mayfair government continued to raise taxes on regular four-
wheeler and two- wheeled vehicles and the consumers who purchase EV vehicles are given
incentives. This has created more controversies where many manufacturers have had to either
shut down their units and some foreign companies have simply exited from Mayfair, while
others have put a hold on their expansion plans. This slowdown has also severely affected
employment, with tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs at manufacturing plants and
ancillary units. Therefore, the petitioner would like to strongly emphasize that reasonable
classification test is not being conducted properly and there is a huge discrimination to be seen
between the EV manufactures and the other diesel vehicles.
5.Ramkrishna Dalmia V. Justice S.R Tendolkar27- In this famous case law, the Supreme Court
of India describes and defines the jurisprudence of equality before law under Article 14 of
Indian Constitution. The very popular "classification test" was given while delivering the
judgment in this case. In simple words it means that this principle allows the states to make
differential classification of subjects (which would generally be restricted by the provisions of
Article 14) provided that such a classification is made on the basis of intelligible differentia
(which in simple words mean that objects within the class are clearly distinguishable from those
objects which are outside such class) and there must be a presence of rational nexus with the
objective which is sought to be achieved by such classification. The Court held this while
determining if the statute is valid or is in violation of Article 14. The Court also held that the
onus of proof that any law is violative of the Constitution lies upon one who asserts that. And
26
Lidb 10
27
Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice S.R Tendolkar, AIR, 1958 SCR 279
[22]
COMPETITION 2022
a general presumption has to be made that any law passed by the legislature was made in good
faith as well as knowledge of existing circumstances.
6.Maganlal Chhaganlal Pvt Ltd V. municipal corporation of Gr. Bombay28- This case was
much needed when it came to Article 14 of the Constitution because while delivering the
judgment in this case the court provided the much-needed clarification to the "reasonable
classification test" which helped in a better understanding of the test. In this case the court may
declare distinction between the statutes which make a classification themselves and those
statutes which make a classification which is authorized to the executive. In the case where the
classification is made by the statute itself the statute will be held invalid if it fails to meet the
reasonable classification test. The other case where the classification is made by executive
given authority if guidelines are provided in such statute (be it either express or implied) to the
executive to make such classification and if the executive fails the test of reasonable
classification, then action will be invalid and not the complete statute itself.
B. AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN MoRTH CENTRAL MOTOR

VEHICLE RULES 1989.
7. “In 2018, MoRTH 29amended the central motor vehicles Rules ,1989 to provide that certain
category of motor vehicles conforming to the MS -IV Emission standard shall not be allowed
to be sold and registered after the 30th September 2020. Automobile manufacturers have to
make sure that they not only minimize the amount of pollution caused by the exhaust, but also
have to make sure the overall performance and efficiency of the vehicle stays intact.”30
8.State of Bombay v. FN Balsara-V 31The doctrine of pitch and substance was applied in this
case. The petitioner pleaded that Bombay Prohibition Act was violative of Article 14 and
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and thus, it must be struck down. Provision under
the Bombay Prohibition Act stated that alcohol mixed medicines and cleaning goods (like toilet
products) having alcohol contents in it were prohibited from selling and buying. The Honorable
High Court agreed with the petitioners’ prayers. The High Court held that some provisions of
this Act were valid, and some were invalid. Aggrieved with the decision, the petitioner moved
28
Maganlal Chhaganlal Pvt Ltd V. municipal corporation of Gr. Bombay, 1974 AIR 2009, 1975 SCR (1) 1
29
MoRTH, 1942
30
Lidb 6
31
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara-V, AIR 1951 SC 318
[23]
COMPETITION 2022
before the Supreme Court filing an appeal against the High Court's decision. The Supreme
Court observed that the state legislature is well within its right to prohibit keeping, selling, and
using intoxicated wine under list 2 therefore there was no dispute.
[24]
COMPETITION 2022
IV.WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF MAYFAIR HAS THE POWER TO
EXTEND THE TIMELINE SET BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAYFAIR FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MS-VI NORMS. IF YES, WHETHER THE SAME
SHOULD BE EXTENDED?
1. It is humbly submitted before the court by the petitioners that the timeline decided by the
government should be extended in case of implementation of MS-VI norms. If the same is
not extended it will lead to the loss of employment which in turn will violate Right to
livelihood of the workers associated with the Society of Automobile Manufacturers
Association of Mayfair.
A. Need to extend the timeline
2. As presented in the factsheet “Mayfair is known to be the world's fourth largest automobile
market. The contribution of the automobile sector to the overall GDP of Mayfair stands at
7.1% and 49% of the manufacturing GDP.32” The proposed MS-VI standards are far-
reaching in scope and incorporate substantial changes to existing emission standards MS-
IV. Automobile manufacturers have to make sure that they not only minimize the amount
of pollution caused by the exhaust, but also have to make sure the overall performance and
efficiency of the vehicle stays intact, for which they have to invest a whopping sum of
money for Research and Development to upgrade their vehicles and make them MS-VI
compatible. “The Mayfair automobile industry has had one of its worst years in 2019, with
passenger vehicles sales falling by almost 20% in one quarter, the worst to happen in
almost two decades. This can be attributed to multiple reasons like slowdown in overall
economy, the crisis in the non-banking finance sector, a liquidity crunch, and the increase
in third-party insurance and road tax in some states, and the confusion around MS-VI
norms further exacerbated by the lockdown and weak demand due to COVID19
pandemic.”33
3. The above-mentioned facts clearly depict the difficulty in adapting MS-VI norms in the
prevailing situation. The economic crisis in Mayfair has led to recession in the automobile
32
lidb 3
33
lidb 8
[25]
COMPETITION 2022
sector; it has forced thousands of workers to give up on their jobs at manufacturing plants
and ancillary units. This clearly violates Article 21 of the Constitution of Mayfair.
B. ARTICLE 21 AND ITS VIOLATION
4. The Economy of Mayfair has gone through a really bad phase wherein the citizens
are trying to recover from the sudden pandemic surge and the transition from fuel motor
vehicles to EV vehicles would violate their right to livelihood which is under the ambit
of Article 21
5. The petitioner would like to bring to the attention of this honorable court that the
transition from fuel vehicles to EV vehicles stands as a barrier to their means of earning
an income. The right to earn a life is under the Right to livelihood which is presented
in the constitution of Mayfair under the ambit of Article 21.
6. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation34, the state of Maharashtra in 1981
and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict the pavement dwellers and
those who were residing in slums in Bombay. There can be no depreciation of the
Constitution or renunciation of fundamental rights. The court said: “No individual can
trade the freedoms that are conferred on him by the Constitution. A concession made
by him in a proceeding, whether by an error of law or otherwise, that he does not
possess or assert a particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him
in this proceeding or in any other subsequent procedure. Such a concession, if
implemented, would run counter to the purpose of the Constitution.”
7. The above presented case proves the necessity of Right to livelihood provided under
the ambit of Article 21 of the constitution of Mayfair.
C. RAPID TRANSITION IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD

8. The transition from Fuel vehicles to EV vehicles cannot take place in a blink of an
eye. “The sales fell by 20% in one quarter including the slowdown in the overall
economy, the confusion around MS-VI norms further exacerbated by the lockdown and
34
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl (2)
[26]
COMPETITION 2022
weak demand due to COVID19 pandemic has afflicted the lives of manufacturers and
retailers at large”.35
9. With the slowdown of the economy, investment in research and development will
accrue a hefty amount to the manufacturers and inconvenient to the consumers in the
prevailing pandemic situation to adapt it. It is humbly pointed out before the court that
the majority of the batteries that are used in the EVs are imported by the EV
manufacturing companies and then dumped into landfills after their use is exhausted.
These batteries constitute substances that if not recycled properly can cause “significant
harm to both the environment and human beings. The present set of laws in Mayfair
are not adequate to provide for a cohesive set of rules for the safe disposal of EV
batteries”36. So, switching from fuel vehicles to EV vehicles will negatively affect the
environment and will act as an add-on in the degradation of the Environment.
35
Lidb 8
36
lidb 11
[27]
COMPETITION 2022
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
I. The constitution of Mayfair provides the absolute right to live in a pollution free
environment to its citizens included under the ambit of Article 21 and the rights of
the citizens of Mayfair have been violated.
II. A complete ban should be granted on the manufacture and sale of passenger motor
vehicles.
III. The notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violating article 14 of the

constitution of Mayfair.
IV. The timeline decided by the government should be extended in case of

implementation of MS-VI norms.
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,

4,
Counsels for the Petitioners.
[28]
COMPETITION 2022
[29]
COMPETITION 2022
[30]

Memorial of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ND CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW (CAIL) NATIONAL MOOT COURT

2ND CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum

Civil Appeal No. ____ /2021

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

7. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 388

9. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India

10. State of Bihar v. Murad Ali, AIR 1, 1988 SCR

11. Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan AIR, 1958

15. State of Bombay v. FN Balsara-V AIR 1951 SC 318

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

2. A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 214 (2008

3. BASU, D.D. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (LEXIS-NEXIS

4. SEEGER, ELIZABETH,1889-1973. (1969). THE RAMAYANA. NEW YORK

5. JOSEPHE. STIGLITZ, MAKINGNATURAL RESOURCES INTO A BLESSING

6. JOHN LOCKE, ‘SECOND TREATISE’IN PETERLASLETT (ED), TWO

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

1. Whether the Constitution of Mayfair guarantees the absolute right to live in a

3. Whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

1. Whether the Constitution of Mayfair guarantees the absolute right to live in a

Mayfair's constitution provides a pollution-free environment. Respectfully, Mayfair

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

3. Whether the notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violative of

It is respectfully argued that applying MS VI emission regulations violates Mayfair's

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

I. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION OF MAYFAIR GUARANTEES THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIVE

A.THE CONSTITUTION OF MAYFAIR GUARANTEES RIGHT TO LIVE IN A

B. THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENT UNDER

C. RELATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

D. THE CITIZEN’S RESPONSIBILITY WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENT

A. THE SAID BAN IS NOT IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 19(1)(G)

C. THE PROPOSITION IS NOT ULTRA VIRES TO THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT

A. THE DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION MADE ON THE BASIS

B. AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN MoRTH CENTRAL MOTOR

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

A. Need to extend the timeline

B. ARTICLE 21 AND ITS VIOLATION

C. RAPID TRANSITION IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD

III. The notification implementing MS VI emission norms is violating article 14 of the

IV. The timeline decided by the government should be extended in case of

All of which is humbly prayed,

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONERS (EAN AND SAM)

You might also like