Acknowledgement: Professional Accounting System. The Success of This Project Is A Result of Sheer Hard Work
Acknowledgement: Professional Accounting System. The Success of This Project Is A Result of Sheer Hard Work
Acknowledgement: Professional Accounting System. The Success of This Project Is A Result of Sheer Hard Work
Before we get into thick things, I would like to add few words of appreciation for the people
who have been a part of this Project right from its inception. The writing of this project has
been one of the significant academic challenges I have faced and without the support,
patience and guidance of the people involved in this task would not have been completed. It
qis to them I owe my deepest gratitude.
It gives me immense pleasure in presenting this project report on Professional Ethics &
Professional Accounting System. The success of this project is a result of sheer hard work
and determination put in by me with the help of my project guide and takes the opportunity
to express my gratitude to Dr. Rekha Khandelwal (Asst.Prof.) of S.S.Jain Subodh Law
College, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Date who played a significant role in my project. I hereby, take
this opportunity to add a special note of thanks for the Principal GAURAV KATARIA constant
encouragement at every step.
I also feel heartiest sense of obligation to my library staff members and seniors who helped
me in collection of data and resource material and also in its processing as well as in drafting
manuscript. The project is dedicated to all those people, who helped me while doing this
project.
Date:
Submitted by-
Seema Gaur
(Signature)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Seema Gaur of LL.B. I Year has carried out this Project Report titled
Professional Ethics & Professional Accounting System under my supervision for the partial
fulfillment of LL.B. Degree offered by S.S.Jain Subodh Law College, Mansarovar, Jaipur, during
the academic year 2023-24 is an original work carried out by the student under my
supervision. The student has completed the research work in stipulated time and acceding
to the matter prescribed for the purpose.
Date:
Name of Supervisor:
Dr. Rekha Khandelwal
(Asissant Professor)
Signature of Supervisor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. on the facts of this case, we are of the view that the above test squarely applies
and therefore, the order of the High Court should be confirmed. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
II. Appellant shall be taken into custody to undergo the sentence imposed by the
Division Bench of the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs.
III. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P.11 held that the High Court has jurisdiction to
take action for contempt of court as a court of record under Article 215 of the
Constitution while trying an election petition.
❖ ISSUES
The appellant contested the biennial election to Raiya Sabha held in the year 1984. In that
connection, he filed an Election Petition No.1/84 on the file of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. That Election Petition was tried by Mr.justice Upendralal Waghray. During the
hearing of the said Election Petition , the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application being
S.R.No.16572/85 requesting the hon'ble Chief justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court to
withdrawn the said Election petition from the Court of Mr. Justice Upendralal waghray and
transfer the same to some other learned Judge. In the said Miscellaneous Application for
transfer, the appellant made the following allegation:
"It is alleged that his lordship the Hon'ble mr. Justice Upendralal waghray is under the evil
influence of Sri N.T. Rama Rao, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, because of his relative, Mr.
Shravan Kumar I.A.S., Chief secretary to the Chief Minister Sri N.T. Rama Rao, since the said
Mr.Shravan Kumar is behind the fraud in connection with the regisnation of the 1st
respondent, viz., Mr. P.Radhakrishna from the membership of the A.P. Public Service
Commission. In these circumstances, I submit that his lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Upendralal Waghray cannot do justice to me in the above election petition and request that
the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad may be pleased to
withdraw the election petition from the file of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray
and make it over to some other judge....
❖ PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
Before the High Court the appellant argued person and the learned Advocate General
Appeared for prosecuting the case. The learned Advocate General submitted before the High
Court that having regard to the fact that the Contemnor made baseless allegations against
the learned Judge in the Transfer Application and adding scurrilous allegation in the Counter
Affidavit in the Contempt Application aggravating the offence, he should be dealt with
severely.
The appellant appearing in person before the High Court challenged the jurisdiction of the
learned Judge to indicates proceedings under the Act as, accordingly to him, the learned Judge
was acting only as an ' authority' as contemplated by Article 329(b) of the Constitution of
India. He further contended that the initiation of proceedings by the learned Judge was in
violation of section 13 of the Ac. His third contention was that by reason of the order dated
1.7.86 passed by P.A. Chaudary, J., the order dated 16.4.85 passed by Upendralal Waghray ,
J., "was defeated". He next contended that the proceedings were barred by limitation
provides in Section 20 of the Act. His fifth contention was that the learned Judge while making
an order of 16.4.85 partially denied the allegations and thereby indirectly admitted the order
part of allegation made by him. The last contention was that while passing the order on
25.4.85 the learned judge has discharged him and thereafter the question of continuing the
contempt proceedings will not arise.
❖ RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
Lastly, it was argued that the petition was barred by time under Section 20 of the Act. As
rightly pointed out by the High Court Section 20 of the Act merely provides for limitation to
initiate the proceedings and not for the conclusion of contempt proceedings. The proceedings
were initiated by Order dated 16.4.85 whereas the allegations constituting contempt were
contained in an affidavit filed on 27.3.1985. Therefore, the time taken for disposal beyond
one year partly on account of the appellant himself, as pointed out earlier, cannot be
permitted to argue that application was barred by limitation.
The appellant then argued that under Article 329-A of the Constitution, the disputes arising
out of electoral matters are to be decided by 'an authority' provided under any law made by
the appropriate legislature. Therefore, notwithstanding Section 80 A of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 investing the High Court with the jurisdiction to try an election petition. It
must be deemed that the High Court is functioning as an 'authority' only and not as a court
and, therefore, has no jurisdiction to issue suo moto notice under the contempt of Courts Act.
Here again, the High Court has dealt with this point in detail and expressed its opinion as
under:
It cannot be construed as precluding the parliament from conferring the jurisdiction to try an
election petition, upon a Court or a High Court. The expression 'authority' is not defined either
in Articles 366 of the Constitution, or in the General Clauses Act, 1897. Having regard to the
context and the purpose underlying Article 329(b), we are inclined to hold that it was
permissible for the parliament to designate a Court, viz., the High Court, to try election
petitions.
❖ PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
The High Court rejecting the first contention held Article 329(b) cannot be constructed as
precluding the parliament from conferring the jurisdiction to try an election petition, upon a
court of a High Court and the expression 'authority' is not defined either in Articles 366 of
the Constitution on in the General Clauses Act, 1897. On that basis the learned judges
rejected the first contention and held that it was permissible for the Parliament to designate
a Court, namely, the High Court, to try election petitions. On the second contention based on
paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit, the learned Judges, after observing that the averment
in that paragraph was extremely scandalous, and compound the gravity of the allegations,
held that the contention was neither a legal contention nor a factual one against the charge
levelled against him. Likewise, dealing with the third contention it was held that the order
dated 1.7.86 passed by Mr.Justice P.A. Choudhary referring the contempt case to be heard by
Division Bench, will not defeated the order dated 16.4.85 of Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray.
On the point of limitation based on Section 20 of the Act, the learned Judges held that Section
20 provides for limitation for initiation, but not for conclusion of contempt proceedings.
While rejecting the fifth contention as irrelevant which could not be entertained the learned
Judges held that a contemnor cannot expect as learned Judge of the Court to reply to every
one of his reckless allegations. As regards the last contention based on the order dated
25.4.85 of the learned single judge, the High Court found that contention was based on a
misreading of the order dated 25.4.85 and from the material placed before the Court it was
clear that the respondent was put on clear notice of the charge he has to meet and that the
proceedings were not proceedings under section 14, but under Section 15 of the Act.
The High Court in its detailed judgement considered each and every one of the contention
raised before it and ultimately came to the conclusion as under:
"We are of the opinion, that the allegations made in the affidavit.
Which we have extracted hereinabove, do constitute a clear case of criminal contempt. The
respondent wanted to scandalise the learned judge and thereby lower the authority of the
Court within the meaning of Sub-clause (i) of clause
(in Section 2. the said statement also attracts sub)
Provides that where the High Court consists only of one Judge, he shall try all election
petitions presented to that Court.
The High Court in its discretion may, in the interests of justice or convenience, try an election
petition, wholly or partly, at a place other than the place of seat of the High Court".
This section expressly says that "the court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall
be the High Court." It says further such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a single
Judge of the High Court. The jurisdiction to try an election petition is thus given to a 'Court',
viz., the High Court. In such a situation, the argument that the judge trying the election
petition should be deemed to be an 'authority' and not a 'Court', is contrary to the express
language in the enactment. We see no substance in the contention that because clause (b)
in Articles 329, employs the expression 'authority', the parliament was not competent to
confer the said jurisdiction on a court, or that the Court empowered by the parliamentary
enactment, should still be treated as an 'authority'. We do not find any such limitation
in Article 329(b).
❖ COURT’S REASONING
The matter was then heard by a Division Bench consisting of M.N. Rao. It appears that the
appellant was not regular in appearing before Division Bench and the Division Bench,
therefore, directed to issue a bailable warrant on 9.6.87 to secure the presence of the
appellant. Thereafter, the case was listed before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Jeevan
Reddy and Mr. Justice Neeladri Rao. Even before this Bench the appellant did not appear at
the time of hearing and the court was compelled to issue a non-bailable warrant to secure his
presence. In the meanwhile, it is seen from the records that the appellant moved this Court
in Transfer Petition (criminal) No.147/87 for Transfer of the contempt case. This court
requested the Chief justice of the High Court to fix a Division Bench for hearing the case to
ensure an early disposal of the matter. He also filed Criminal Miscellaneous petition Nos.
2988-90 of 1988 in T.P. (Crl.) No. 147/87 for punishing Respondents 1&3 therein for not
complying with the Order in T.P. (CRl.) No. 147/87. This Court again directed the High Court
to dispose of the contempt petition within six weeks from 22.7.88. As noticed earlier, the
appellant without disclosing the laches on his part is not appearing before the Court-bailable
Warrants to secure his presence, seems to have moved this court for early disposal of the
contempt petition. The case was ultimately heard on 3rd and 4th July, 1989 by the Division
Bench.
At no stage, has the respondent offered any apology, or expressed regret. On the other hand,
he was made graver allegations in his counter, saying that the learned Judge has received a
bride of Rs. 2 lakhs. It is clear that the respondent is a totally irresponsible person. Who has
no respect for Court and, he is bent upon scandalising the Court and brow beating its Judges.
It is evident that when his petition for additional issues was dismissed, he resorted to the said
scandalous allegations with a view to stall the trial of the election petition.
His attitude as exhibited in his counter-affidavit and his argument before us, indicate that he
is an incorrigible person who has to be dealt with severely. We are equally satisfied that the
contempt is of such a nature that it has substantially interfered with the due course of justice.
The parties cannot be allowed to resort to such strategems, either with a view to get an
adjournment or to obtain a change of the Judge.
The learned Judges after pronouncing judgement holding the appellant guilty of contempt of
court, at the request of the appellant, suspended the order to enable him to approach this
Court by way of appeal for a period of two weeks.
❖ CONCLUSION
clauses (ii) and (iii) as well, since they interfere with the due course of a judicial proceedings
and the administration of justice.
For the above reasons, we hold the respondent, Sri. T. Deen Dayal, guilty of contempt of
Court. We are of the opinion that the deserves no leniency and that substantial punishment
should be imposed him. Accordingly, we punish him with simple imprisonment for a period
of three months. The sentence shall be carried out forthwith."
The appellant has thereafter filed this appeal. When the appellant opened the case, we asked
him whether he would take the legal assistance. He challenged the order under appeal
contending that inasmuch as this Court's orders in Transfer Petition (Clr.) No.147/87 and
Criminal M.P. No.2989/88 in Transfer Petition No. 147/87 having not been complied with
within the specified time, the order under appeal must be set aside on that ground. We not
find any substance in this argument as the orders of this Court, directed the High Court to
dispose of the contempt Petition at an early date giving specific time. We find from the order
under appeal, the delay was on the part of the appellant also in not appearing before the
Court on the dates of hearing, necessitating the High Court to issue initially bailable warrant
and later on non-bailable warrant to secure his presence. Therefore, it does not lie in the
mouth of the appellant to make any complaint against the delay in the disposal of the
Contempt Petition by the High Court.
The appellant next argued that the Chief justice of High Court has not authorised the Division
Bench which delivered the order under appeal to hear the Contempt Application. We are at
a loss to know on what basis this argument was advanced. It is a known fact that the Chief
Justice constitutes the Benches for disposal of cases and without the orders of Chief Justice,
the Contempt Application would not have been posted before the Bench for disposal. This
contention also, therefore, rejected.
We agree with the above view expresses by the High Court and also ass that the authority
designated being High Court, it has jurisdiction to take action for contempt of court as a 'court
record' under Articles 215 of the Constitution. While trying an election petition.
Having regard to the passage of time since the date of initiation of contempt proceedings, we
thought that the appellant would take a reasonable stand. To our Utter dismay, the appellant
reiterated the allegations with same vehemence, refusing to express any repentance of
regret.
on the facts of this case, we are of the view that the above test squarely applies and therefore,
the order of the High Court should be confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Appellant shall be taken into custody to undergo the sentence imposed by the Division Bench
of the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs.
❖ Judgement
On perusing these allegations, the learned judge felt that the allegations made against him
were not only baseless but also made recklessly with a view to scandalise the Court.
Accordingly, the learned Judge passed an order on 16.4.85 holding that the allegation made
in the Transfer Application 'amounts to interference with and obstruction to administration
of justice, amounting to 'criminal contempt' as defined in section 2(c) of the Act. Hence, the
learned judge proposed initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant and issued
notice to the appellant to put forward his defence and adjourned the matter to 25.4/85. On
the adjourned date, the learned judge directed the papers to be placed before the Hon'ble
Chief Justice for placing the matter before any other learned Judge. In the first instance, the
matter came up before Mr. Justice P.A.Choudhary, who passed an order directing the matter
to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench, accepting the contention of the appellant
that the matter being a criminal contempt was required to be dealt with by Division Bench.
The matter was then heard by a Division Bench consisting of M.N. Rao. It appears that the
appellant was not regular in appearing before Division Bench and the Division Bench,
therefore, directed to issue a bailable warrant on 9.6.87 to secure the presence of the
appellant. Thereafter, the case was listed before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Jeevan
Reddy and Mr. Justice Neeladri Rao. Even before this Bench the appellant did not appear at
the time of hearing and the court was compelled to issue a non-bailable warrant to secure his
presence. In the meanwhile, it is seen from the records that the appellant moved this Court
in Transfer Petition (criminal) No.147/87 for Transfer of the contempt case. This court
requested the Chief justice of the High Court to fix a Division Bench for hearing the case to
ensure an early disposal of the matter. He also filed Criminal Miscellaneous petition Nos.
2988-90 of 1988 in T.P. (Crl.) No. 147/87 for punishing Respondents 1&3 therein for not
complying with the Order in T.P. (CRl.) No. 147/87. This Court again directed the High Court
to dispose of the contempt petition within six weeks from 22.7.88. As noticed earlier, the
appellant without disclosing the laches on his part is not appearing before the Court-bailable
Warrants to secure his presence, seems to have moved this court for early disposal of the
contempt petition. The case was ultimately heard on 3rd and 4th July, 1989 by the Division
Bench.
BIBIOGRAPHY
https;//www.lawplanet.com
https://www.indiankanoon.com
https:///www.legalservice.com
VS.
——————————————————————————————————
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HIS COMPANION, JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
——————————————————————————————————
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATION
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8 PRAYER
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SYMBOLS ABBREVIATION
& And
Art. Article
Vs. Versus
Hon’ble Honourable
SC Supreme Court
CASE LAW
● State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, AIR 2000 SC 3751.
● Tehri Hydro Development Corporation vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, (2004) 10 SCC 657.
● State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manku Bai, (2013) 6 SCC 363.
● Lachmi Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 2 SCC 772.
● State of Bihar vs. Shailabala Devi, AIR 2002 SC 3492.
● Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs. Delhi Pradesh Youth Congress Committee (2012), 175 DLT 277.
● T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2012), 3 SCC 210.
● Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446.
STATUTES
● The Constitution of India, 1949
● The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
● United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people, 2007
● Forest Reserve Act, 1980
BOOKS
● Basu D.D., ‘introduction to the Constitution of India’ : Lexin Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2008
● Shyam Divan ,Environmental Law and Policy in India Cases, Materials, and Statutes, 2001
● Environmental Law in India P. Leelakrishnan, 1999 ;Lexis Nexis 6th edition
● Dr Kailesh Rai, Constitutional Law of India.
● M.P. Jain, constitutional law, Lexis Nexis 8th Edition.
● Environmental Law and Policy in India: Cases, Materials, and Statutes ,Shyam Divan, 1991
WEBSITES
● Manupatra - https://www.manupatra.com/
● SCC Online - https://www.scconline.com/
● Westlaw India - https://www.westlawindia.com/
● Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/
● The Supreme Court of India website - https://main.sci.gov.in/
● Legal Information Institute of India - https://www.indlii.org/
The Applicant has filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, In the matter of
National Human Right Commission (NHRC) Vs. State of LEYON, under the Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, The Respondent reserves the right to challenge the same.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
● The Indus district in the State of LEYON is home to the Indi tribe, recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under
the V Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
● In 2011, a hydro-electric project was proposed in the Indus district, aiming to provide water and electricity
to the State of LEYON and neighbouring states.
● The project faced resistance from the Indi tribe, who claimed that it would result in the displacement of a
majority of their community, impacting their livelihood and cultural heritage.
● The government conducted a thorough preliminary survey of the proposed project area to assess potential
environmental and social impacts.
● After careful consideration and in compliance with applicable laws, the government approved the project,
taking into account the long-term benefits it would bring to the region and its residents.
● The government acknowledges the significance of protecting the rights of indigenous and tribal
communities and ensuring their well-being as enshrined in the Indian Constitution and international legal
frameworks.
● The government has allocated sufficient funds for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected
individuals and has formulated a comprehensive plan to mitigate any adverse consequences of the project.
● While the Indi tribe claimed that the government did not obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, the
government asserts that detailed consultations and information dissemination measures were undertaken to
seek their views and address their concerns.
● Citizens' organizations, including the Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS), organized peaceful protests against
the project, expressing their discontent with the government's decision.
● In response to the protests, the government increased police presence in the Indus district to maintain law
and order and ensure the safety of all individuals involved.
● During investigations into the activities of the ISS, it was discovered that Mr. Mukesh, the Secretary of the
organization, was collecting funds without proper documentation, raising concerns about potential illegal
activities.
● Search operations at Mr. Mukesh's premises resulted in the seizure of unaccounted money amounting to Rs.
90,000/-, indicating the possibility of financial irregularities or support to underground activities.
● In order to preserve public safety and security, the government, based on the evidence collected, declared
the ISS as an illegal organization until further investigations can be conducted.
● The government's actions are in accordance with its constitutional obligations, prioritizing the welfare of all
citizens while striving to balance development, environmental concerns, and cultural preservation.
1. Whether the government's approval of the hydro-electric project was in accordance with the national
and international legal framework, considering the project is crucial for the development and welfare of
the state and neighbouring regions. and the environmental impact assessment conducted and the
fulfillment of legal obligations in this regard?
2. Whether the Indi-tribe's claim of the violation of their fundamental rights is justified, considering the
government's efforts to address their rehabilitation and livelihood concerns through the allocation of
sufficient funds and the preparation of a detailed plan?
3. Whether the government's actions in suppressing the protests of citizens' organizations, including the
ISS, and declaring the ISS as an illegal organization were lawful, considering the alleged involvement
of Mr. Mukesh in collecting unaccounted money amounting 90000/-, which government believe was
intended to support underground anti-government activities and the government's obligation to
maintain law and order?
4. Whether the government's refusal to lift the ban on the ISS and halt the project until a proper
Environment Impact Assessment is done, as per the Government of India Environment Impact
Assessment Notification 1994, is reasonable, considering the substantial investment already made in
the project and the potential adverse consequences of halting it?
1. The government's approval of the hydro-electric project was conducted in accordance with the national
and international legal framework. A thorough environmental impact assessment was carried out, and
legal obligations were fulfilled to address any potential environmental concerns. The project holds
significant importance for providing essential water and electricity to the region and neighbouring
states.
2. The claim that the government's approval of the project would result in the displacement of the Indi-
tribe from their ancestral land is unfounded. The government has conducted a preliminary survey and
formulated a detailed plan for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons. Adequate funds have been
allocated to ensure their well-being and minimize the impact on their livelihood and cultural identity.
3. The government's actions in suppressing the peaceful protests, including those of the Indi
Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS), were necessary to maintain law and order. The ban on the ISS was
enforced due to the alleged involvement of the organization in activities opposing the government, as
indicated by the unaccounted funds found in Mr. Mukesh's possession. This action was taken in
accordance with the government's responsibility to counter any potential threat to national security and
to prevent the misuse of funds for unlawful purposes.
4. The government's refusal to halt the project and lift the ban on the ISS is justifiable. Considerable
investments have already been made in the project, and stopping it at this stage would lead to
substantial cost escalation and hinder the overall development and welfare of the region. The
government remains committed to fulfilling its legal obligations and ensuring the project's compliance
with all relevant laws and regulations.
1. Whether the government's approval of the hydro-electric project was in accordance with the
national and international legal framework, considering the project is crucial for the development
and welfare of the state and neighbouring regions. and the environmental impact assessment
conducted and the fulfillment of legal obligations in this regard?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court that the the writ petition filed by the National
Human Right Commission (NHRC) is not maintainable. The council relies on the following reasons to prove
this submission.
The approval of the hydro-electric project by the government of State LEYON was in accordance with the
national and international legal framework. The project holds immense significance for the development and
welfare of the state and its neighboring regions. It aims to provide much-needed water and electricity to the
entire region, addressing the persistent water and power scarcity issues.
There are several reasons to support the government's approval of the hydro-electric project, considering its
alignment with the national and international legal framework, as well as the significance of the project for
the development and welfare of the state and neighboring regions.
——————————
1AIR 2000 SC 3751.
2(2004) 10 SCC 657.
2. Whether the Indi-tribe's claim of the violation of their fundamental rights is justified, considering
the government’s efforts to address their rehabilitation and livelihood concerns through the
allocation of sufficient funds and the preparation of a detailed plan?
The claim that the government's approval of the project would result in the displacement of the Indi-tribe
from their ancestral land is unfounded. The government has conducted a preliminary survey and formulated
a detailed plan for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons. Adequate funds have been allocated to ensure
their well-being and minimize the impact on their livelihood and cultural identity.
There are several reasons to argue that the Indi tribe's claim of the violation of their fundamental rights may
not be justified, considering the government's efforts to address their rehabilitation and livelihood concerns
through the allocation of sufficient funds and the preparation of a detailed plan.
—————————
3(2013) 6 SCC 363
—————————
4(2014) 2 SCC 772
3.1 Alleged involvement of ISS in anti-government activities and Preservation of law and order
● The government has an obligation to maintain law and order in the interest of overall public safety and
security. The suppression of protests by citizens' organizations, including the ISS, may have been
necessary to prevent potential violence, disruption of public order, and safeguard the well-being of the
general population. Such actions are taken to ensure peace and stability in society.
● The government's primary responsibility is to ensure the welfare and interests of the general public.
Taking action against organizations or individuals believed to be engaged in activities that may be
detrimental to the overall interest of the state and its citizens is necessary for safeguarding public well-
being. These actions may be carried out in accordance with established legal procedures and frameworks.
● In the case of State of Bihar vs. Shailabala Devi (2001)5, the Supreme Court emphasized the
government's duty to maintain law and order and protect public safety. The court held that the government
has the authority to take necessary measures, including arrests and restrictions, to prevent any potential
disruption, violence, or threat to public peace. The court recognized the importance of curbing unlawful
activities and upholding the rule of law. This case supports the government's perspective that their actions
in suppressing the protests and declaring the ISS as an illegal organization were justified in order to
maintain law and order.
———————————
5AIR 2002 SC 3492
——————————
6(2012) 175 DLT 277
The government's refusal to halt the project and lift the ban on the ISS is justifiable. Considerable
investments have already been made in the project, and stopping it at this stage would lead to substantial
cost escalation and hinder the overall development and welfare of the region and the involvement of Mr.
Mukesh in collecting unaccounted money, which the government believes was intended to support
underground anti-government activities. The government remains committed to fulfilling its legal
obligations and ensuring the project’s compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.
4.1 Reason for refusal to lift the ban on the ISS and halt project until a proper EIA is conducted
● The NHRC recommends conducting a proper EIA in accordance with the Government of India
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, the government have already carried out a
preliminary survey of the project area. based on their assessment, The Governmet have taken into
account the potential environmental impact and have put measures in place to minimize any adverse
consequences. The project aligns with national and international environmental guidelines.
● The government has already prepared a detailed plan for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons as a
result of the hydroelectric project. They have allocated sufficient funds and resources for the
rehabilitation process. Halting the project would disrupt these plans and may further delay the
resettlement process for the affected individuals and communities.
● In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2012)7, the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of balancing economic development and environmental protection. It
recognized that development projects are crucial for the growth of a nation. However, it also stressed the
need to ensure sustainable development and the protection of the environment. The court held that
appropriate safeguards and measures should be in place to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts
of such projects.
———————
7(2012) 3 SCC 210.
—————————
8AIR 1996 SC 1446.
1. The government's approval of the project was in accordance with the national and
international legal framework, thereby fulfilling its legal obligations.
2. The court recognizes and acknowledges the government's sincere efforts to address the
rehabilitation and livelihood concerns of the Indi tribe.
3. The government's actions in suppressing the protests of citizens' organizations,
including the ISS, were lawful, as they were necessary to ensure the peaceful
functioning of society and safeguarding public safety and security.
4. The court understands and upholds the government's decision, recognizing the
government's responsibility to balance environmental concerns with the broader
development goals and the welfare of the state and its people.
AND/OR
Grant any other relief(s), direction(s), or order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the best interest
of justice, equality and good conscience
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall forever pray.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Vs.
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATION
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 ISSUES RAISED
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8 PRAYER
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
Const. Constitution
Vs. Versus
SC Supreme Court
Ltd. Limited
NHRC National Human Right Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
& And
Pvt. Private
Hon’able Honourable
ISS Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti
SCC Supreme court case
FRA Forest Reserve Act
CASE LAW
STATUTES
BOOKS
● Basu D.D., ‘introduction to the Constitution of India’ : Lexin Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2008
● Shyam Divan ,Environmental Law and Policy in India Cases, Materials, and Statutes, 2001
● Environmental Law in India P. Leelakrishnan, 1999 ;Lexis Nexis 6th edition
● Dr Kailesh Rai, Constitutional Law of India.
● M.P. Jain, constitutional law, Lexis Nexis 8th Edition.
● Environmental Law and Policy in India: Cases, Materials, and Statutes ,Shyam Divan, 1991
WEBSITES
● Manupatra - https://www.manupatra.com/
● SCC Online - https://www.scconline.com/
● Westlaw India - https://www.westlawindia.com/
● Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/
● The Supreme Court of India website - https://main.sci.gov.in/
● Legal Information Institute of India - https://www.indlii.org/
The Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
“ 32 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.
The Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court against the violation of fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III [Article 21 , 25 & Article 19 (1)(a)& (b)] and Part X read with
Schedule V of the Constitution.
● Indus is a district in the State of LEYON, India, inhabited by the Indi tribe.
● The government of the State approves a hydro-electric project in Indus in 2020 ,without obtaining free,
prior, and informed consent from the Indi tribe.
● The Indi tribe, a Scheduled Tribe in Indus, protests against a proposed hydroelectric project in their
district, which would submerge 80% of the Indi-inhabited area fearing displacement and submergence of
their sacred sites.
● Citizens' organizations, including the Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS), held peaceful protests and
demonstrations against the government's actions.
● The government deployed police forces to suppress the movement.
● Mr. Mukesh, the Secretary of ISS, collects funds for the movement, leading to police raids where
unaccounted money amounting to 90000/- and donation request letters are found.
● The government declares ISS as an illegal organization.
● ISS files a complaint with the NHRC, alleging gross violation of human rights by the government.
● NHRC recommends halting the project till proper Environment Impact Assessment is done in accordance
with the Government of India Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, obtaining consent, and
revoking the ban on ISS.
● The government refused, stating that the seized funds amounting to 90000/- were for an underground
organization and citing the need to provide water and electricity to the region as well as its neighbouring
States and substantial investment already made.
● NHRC files a Writ petition before the Supreme Court, seeking directions to halt the project, obtain
consent, and lift the ban.
● Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution.
● The Supreme Court will consider constitutional rights, international legal obligations, and the balance
● between tribal rights and developmental goals in its decision-making.
1. Whether the government's approval of the hydro-electric project without obtaining free, prior, and
informed consent from the Indi-tribe is in violation of their fundamental rights under the national and
international legal framework.
2. Whether the government's approval of the hydroelectric project would result in the displacement of the
Indi-tribe from their ancestral land, impacting their livelihood and cultural identity ?
3. Whether the government's actions in suppressing the peaceful protests of citizens' organizations, including
the ISS , and declaration of the Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS) as an illegal organization is a violation of
their fundamental rights or not?
4. Whether the government's refusal to revoking the ban on the ISS and halt the project till proper
Environment Impact Assessment is done in accordance with the Government of India Environment Impact
Assessment Notification 2006 is valid ?
1. The government's approval of the hydro-electric project without obtaining free, prior, and informed consent
from the Indi-tribe is a clear violation of their fundamental rights. The tribe has a right to self-determination
and the preservation of their cultural identity, both of which are protected under the Indian Constitution and
international conventions. The tribe rely on constitutional provisions and international legal frameworks
that recognize the right to self-determination, cultural preservation, and participation in decision-making
processes for indigenous and tribal communities.
2. The hydro-electric project would cause the displacement of a significant portion of the Indi-tribe from their
ancestral land. This displacement would not only disrupt their way of life but also have a detrimental
impact on their livelihoods. Such forced displacement is unlawful and violates the rights of the tribe to live
with dignity and security, as protected under both national and international legal frameworks.
3. The government's deployment of additional police forces to suppress peaceful protests against the project
and declaration of the Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS) as an illegal organization can be argued to
potentially violate the rights guaranteed under Part III and Part X of the Constitution, read with Schedule V,
which protects the rights of scheduled tribes. Under Part III of the Constitution, Article 21,25 & 29
guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted by the courts to
encompass various aspects such as the right to livelihood, dignity, and freedom of association. Article 19(1)
(a) & (b) specifically protects the freedom of speech and expression, including the right to form
associations or unions. Peaceful protests are a legitimate means of voicing dissent and raising concerns, and
any attempt to suppress these protests infringes upon their democratic rights. The government should
respect and protect the fundamental rights of individuals and groups to peacefully express their dissent and
grievances.
4. The government's refusal to halt the project and maintain the ban on the ISS, despite the NHRC's
recommendations, cannot be justified solely based on the project's importance and cost concerns.The ISS
asserts that their activities were peaceful and aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the Indi-tribe,
and therefore, the ban is an unreasonable restriction on their constitutional rights. The court should consider
the violation of rights, compliance with legal frameworks, and the requirement for evidence of connections
to an underground organization before reaching a decision.
1. Whether the government's approval of the hydro-electric project without obtaining free, prior,
and informed consent from the Indi-tribe is in violation of their fundamental rights under the
national and international legal framework ?
The petitioner submits the writ petition filed by the National Human Right Commission (NHRC) is
maintainable due to the reason that the government’s refusal of recommendations made by the NHRC to
prevent the violation of the fundamental rights of Indi-tribe under the national and international legal
framework.
The case is filed under the article 32 of Constitution of India which provides provides discretionary Power
to the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this part.
Regarding the hydro-electric project approved by the government, The petitioner submits that the writ
petition under the Article 32 is maintainable considering the following reasons:
1.1 failure of obtain free, prior, and informed consent
● Obtaining free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from tribes or indigenous communities is essential
when approving any project by the government in order to respect the rights of these communities and to
ensure their participation and protection. FPIC is a concept that recognizes the right of indigenous
communities to give or withhold their consent to projects or activities that may affect their lands,
territories, resources, livelihoods, or cultural heritage.
● Under the FRA, it is mandatory to obtain the consent of the Gram Sabha (village assembly) or other
traditional institutions of self-governance, which represent the interests of the indigenous communities,
before diverting any forest land for developmental projects. The consent of the Gram Sabha is a crucial
aspect to prevent the violation of the rights of indigenous communities and to ensure their equitable and
sustainable development.
● In the case of Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti vs. Union of India (2013)1 , The SC held that the consent of
the village councils (gram sabhas) was required before granting any stage II forest clearance for mining
projects in tribal and forest areas. It reiterated that the process of obtaining consent should be free, prior,
and informed, ensuring that tribal communities have a say in decisions that affect their lands, resources,
and way of life.
————————————
1(2013) 6 SCC 611.
—————————
2(2013) 6 SCC 476.
The proposed hydro-electric project would lead to the submergence of approximately 80% of the Indi-
inhabited area, resulting in the displacement of the Indi-tribe from their ancestral land. The displacement
would not only affect the Indi tribe's livelihood but also sever their deep-rooted connection to the land,
which forms a significant part of their cultural identity. The government's failure to adequately consider
the impact on the Indi-tribe's livelihood and cultural identity violates their fundamental rights under
Articles 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution.
Ancestral land plays a crucial role in the livelihood and cultural identity of indigenous tribes. When the
ancestral land of a tribe is impacted, it can have severe consequences on their well-being, culture, and
overall way of life. Here are some reasons why protecting ancestral land is important:
2.1 Importance of Ancestral land for indigenous tribes :
● Ancestral land often serves as the primary source of livelihood for indigenous tribes. It provides them
with resources for agriculture, hunting, fishing, and gathering, which form the basis of their sustenance
and economic activities. Displacement from ancestral land can disrupt their traditional livelihood
practices and push them into economic hardship.
● Ancestral land holds deep cultural significance for indigenous tribes. It is intimately connected to their
heritage, traditions, and spirituality. Indigenous knowledge, customs, rituals, and social structures are
often rooted in the relationship between communities and their land. Displacement from ancestral land
can lead to the erosion of cultural practices and the loss of traditional knowledge, impacting cultural
continuity and identity.
● In the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011)3 , The SC held that
development activities should not disrupt the livelihood and cultural identity of indigenous communities,
as it violates their fundamental rights. It emphasized that sustainable development must align with the
constitutional protection of the rights and interests of indigenous communities.
————————
3(2011) 7 SCC 338.
————————
4(2000) 10 SCC 664.
The government's actions in suppressing the peaceful protests of citizens' organizations, including the ISS,
and declaring the ISS as an illegal organization may be seen as a violation of their fundamental rights.
Under Part III of the Constitution of India, individuals have the right to freedom of speech and expression
(Article 19(1)(a)), the right to peacefully assemble and form associations (Article 19(1)(b)), and the right to
freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, propagate, and profess any religion (Article 25).
These rights are fundamental and guaranteed to all citizens. Suppression of peaceful protests and
demonstrations by deploying more police force in an attempt to suppress anti-government movements
raises concerns regarding the violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to
peacefully assemble, and the right to form associations. These actions impede the freedom of expression,
association, and assembly, thereby violating the fundamental rights of both ISS and the individuals
participating in the peaceful protests.
Organizations like the Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS) are often necessary to help and protect tribals for
several reasons:
3.1 Role of Organizations to help and protect tribals :
● Organizations like the ISS serve as a platform for tribal communities to come together and collectively
voice their concerns and grievances. They provide a unified voice and representation to raise awareness
about the issues faced by tribal communities, including concerns related to land rights, cultural
preservation, and socioeconomic development.
● These organizations often provide legal support and assistance to tribal communities. They help them
understand their rights under the Constitution, including the rights guaranteed to Scheduled Tribes under
Schedule V. By offering legal aid and advice, these organizations empower tribal communities to assert
their rights and protect themselves from exploitation and discrimination.
● Tribal communities often face challenges in accessing essential services, education, healthcare, and
employment opportunities. Organizations like the ISS can play a crucial role in bridging this gap by
advocating for the implementation of welfare schemes, supporting skill development initiatives, and
facilitating access to resources and government schemes for the overall development of tribal
communities.
——————————
5(2004) 2 SCC 476.
6(1995) 2 SCC 161.
The refusal to revoke the ban on ISS, based on allegations of supporting an underground organization,
should not be grounds to suppress the organization's activities without due process.The government's
obligation to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Assessment, as mandated by the Government of India
Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006, is crucial to ensure the protection of the environment
and the rights of the indigenous community.The government's failure to adhere to the mandated assessment
violates the principles of sustainable development, environmental protection, and the rights guaranteed by
Schedule V of
the Constitution.
The government's refusal to revoke the ban on the ISS and halt the project until a proper Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted in accordance with the Government of India Environment Impact
Assessment Notification 2006 may not be valid for the following reasons:
4.1 Necessity revoking the ban on ISS & The EIA requirement as per 2006 notification :
● The imposition of a ban on the ISS should not be done without due process and valid grounds. The
government should provide an opportunity for the ISS to present its defense and challenge the ban through
a fair and transparent process. This is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure that
organizations are not unjustly suppressed without valid reasons.
● In this case of PUCL vs. Union of India (2003)7, The SC held that the right to association and assembly
includes the right to form organizations and the right to engage in non-violent protests, subject to
reasonable restrictions. The Court emphasized that banning an organization or suppressing protest must be
based on valid grounds and should be proportionate to the threat posed. It also stressed that due process
must be followed in such cases.
● The government has an obligation under the EIA Notification 2006 to carry out a comprehensive
assessment of the project's environmental impacts before granting approval. This assessment includes
evaluating the potential social, cultural, and economic impacts of the project. If the government has not
conducted a proper EIA, it may be in violation of its own legal obligations, undermining sustainability and
the protection of natural resources.
———————
7(2003) 4 SCC 399.
significance of conducting proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before undertaking any project
with potential environmental consequences. The Court stated that the EIA process is crucial for sustainable
development and the protection of the environment. It emphasized that the EIA process should be
transparent, involve public participation, and adhere to legal requirements.
● The government's refusal to revoke the ban on ISS and halt the project until a proper EIA is conducted is
not valid. The ban on ISS should not be imposed without due process and valid grounds, as highlighted in
the PUCL case. Moreover, the government has an obligation under the EIA Notification 2006 to carry out a
comprehensive assessment of the project's environmental impacts. Failure to adhere to the EIA requirement
would violate principles of sustainable development, environmental protection, and the rights guaranteed
under Schedule V of the Constitution, as established in the Lafarge Umiam Mining.
—————————
8(2011) 7 SCC 338.
In the light of the facts of the case, Issues raised , Arguments advanced and authority sided, the
council on behalf of the petitioner humbly pray before the hon’able Court to kindly adjudge and issue
direction to the government of state LEYON;
1. Immediately halt the proposed hydro-electric project in the Indus district until a
comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted in accordance
with the Government of India Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006.
2. Lift the ban imposed on the Indi Sanghrakshak Samiti (ISS).
3. Obtain free, prior, and informed consent from the Indi-tribe before proceeding with
the hydro-electric project.
AND/OR
Grant any other relief(s), direction(s), or order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the best interest
of justice, equality and good conscience
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall forever pray.
Observation of Students
Incompletion of Remand Paper due to Pending of Police Investigation and Challan is not
submitted by the Respondent.