Petitioner Working New_Edited

7/31/2019 Petitioner Working New_Edited

1/19

SSCCHHOOOOLLOOFFEEXXCCEELLLLEENNCCEE,,55TTHH

PPRROOBBOONNOOEENNVVIIRROONNAATTIIOONNAALLMMOOOOTTCCOOUURRTTCCOOMMPPEETTIITTIIOONN

CCHHEENNNNAAII,,TTAAMMIILLNNAADDUU,,IINNDDIIAA

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF DASOI

PPeettiittiioonnss ffiilleedduunnddeerr

AArrttiiccllee 3322 oofftthhee

CCoonnssttiittuuttiioonn ooffDDaassooii

WW..PP.. NNoo..:: ooff22001122

TTHHEEPPRREESSIIDDEENNTT,,GGAAYYAA PPeettiittiioonneerrNNoo.. 11

KKEEEERRII PPeettiittiioonneerrNNoo.. 22

vs.

UUNNIIOONNOOFFDDAASSOOII RReessppoonnddeennttNNoo.. 11

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

MMoosstt RReessppeeccttffuullllyy SSuubbmmiitttteeddttoo tthhee HHoonnbbllee CChhiieeff

JJuussttiiccee ooffIInnddiiaa && ootthheerr CCoommppaanniioonn JJuuddggeess oofftthhee

HHoonnbbllee SSuupprreemmee CCoouurrtt ooffDDaassooii

22001122


2/19

-TABLE OF CONTENTS- Page i ofxi

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS -

TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS

CCOONNTTEENNTTSS PPAAGGEE

IINNDDEEXX OOFF AAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS iiii ooff xxii

LLIISSTT OOFFAABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS vviiii ooff xxii

SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFFJJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONN vviiiiii ooff xxii

SSYYNNOOPPSSIISS OOFFFFAACCTTSS iixx ooff xxii

SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT OOFFCCHHAARRGGEESS xx ooff xxii

SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFFAARRGGUUMMEENNTTSS xxii ooff xxii

PPLLEEAADDIINNGGSS AANNDDAAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS 11 ttoo 77

11.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE DDEECCIISSIIOONN OOFF TTHHEEGGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT TTOO SSEETT UUPP UURRAANNIIUUMM MMIINNEESS AANNDD NNUUCCLLEEAARRPPLLAANNTTSS JJUUSSTTIIFFIIEEDD??................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

22.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT CCAANN BBEE HHEELLDD LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORR TTHHEE DDAAMMAAGGEE TTOO TTHHEEEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF TTHHEE MMIINNIINNGG AANNDD PPOOWWEERR PPLLAANNTT AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS??......................................................33

33.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE CCIIVVIILL LLIIAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF NNUUCCLLEEAARR DDAAMMAAGGEE AACCTT 22001122,, SSEECCTTIIOONN 55 IINNPPAARRTTIICCUULLAARR,, IISS UUNNCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL??..44

44.. WWHHEETTHHEERRTTHHEE OORRDDEERR PPAASSSSEEDD BBYY TTHHEENNUUCCLLEEAARROORRDDEERRCCLLAAIIMMSSTTRRIIBBUUNNAALL IISSVVOOIIDD??................77

PPRRAAYYEERR FFOORRRREELLIIEEFF....88


3/19

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page ii ofxi


II NN DD EE XX OO FF AA UU TT HH OO RR II TT II EE SS

CASES

1. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 ..................................................................... 52. A.R. Antulay vs. R.S Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 ...................................................................... 4

3. Accountant General vs. S. Doraiswamy, (1981) 4 SCC 93 ..................................................... 4

4. Anandi Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 .......................................... 8

5. Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 5 SCC 201 ...................................... 10

6. B.B. Rajwanshi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1089 ....................................... 4

7. Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 60 ................................................ 5

8. Bijayanand v. President of Union of India, AIR 1974 Ori 52 ................................................. 8

9. Binny Limited v. V. Sadasivan, 2005 AIR (SC) 3202 ............................................................. 8

10.C. Ravinchandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, 1995 SCC (5) 457 ............................ 14

11.Chanderbhan vs. S. Kumar, AIR 1980 Bom 48 ..................................................................... 4

12.Chintaman Rao v. Slate of M.P., A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118 .......................................................... 8

13.Civil Writ Petition of theHigh Court of Himachal Pradesh, C.W.P 155 of 1984 ................. 10

14.Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 .......................... 8

15.Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2005 ........ 5

16.Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43 ................................. 10

17.Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 306................ 5

BOOKS

DURGA DAS BASU: CONSTITUTIONALLAW OF INDIA, WADHWA AND COMPANY,

NAGPUR,7TH EDN.(REP.2003). JAIN, M.P.: INDIAN CONSTITUTIONALLAW WADHWA AND COMPANY, NAGPUR, 5TH

EDN.(REP.2005).

KAGZI:CONSTITUTIONOFINDIAINDIA LAW HOUSE,6TH EDN.(2001).

KASHYAP, SUBHASH C.: PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE - LAW, PRIVILEGES,

PRACTICE&PRECEDENTS2ND EDITION (2007).

MALIK, SURENDRA: SUPREME COURT ON WORDSANDPHRASES, EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY,1ST EDN,LUCKNOW (1993).


4/19

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page iii ofxi


MALIK, SURENDRA: SUPREME COURT YEARLY DIGEST 1999, EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY,LUCKNOW (1999).

SEERVAI, H.M.: CONSTITUTIONALLAW OF INDIA:A CRITICAL COMMENTARY

UNIVERSAL BOOK TRADERS,4TH EDN.(1997).

SHUKLA,V.N.:CONSTITUTIONOFINDIAEASTERN BOOK COMPANY,10TH EDN.(2003).

SINGH, G. P.: PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORYINTERPRETATION, 12TH

ED., NAGPUR:

WADHWA,BUTTERWORTHS LEXIS NEXIS (2010).

DICTIONARIES

AIYAR,RAMANATHA P.:THELAWLEXICON,WADHWA &COMPANY,2ND EDN.NAGPUR

(2002).

BLACK,HENRY CAMPBELL:BLACKSLAWDICTIONARY,6TH

ED.,CENTENNIAL ED.(1891-

1991).

CURZON.L.B:DICTIONARYOFLAW,PITMAN PUBLISHING,4TH EDN.NEW DELHI (1994).

GARNER,BRYAN A.:ADICTIONARYOFMODERNLEGALUSAGE,OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS2ND EDN.OXFORD (1995).

GREENBERG,DANIEL AND ALEXANDRA,MILLBROOK:STROUDSJUDICIALDICTIONARY

OFWORDS&PHRASES,VOL.2,6TH

ED.,LONDON:SWEET &MAXWELL (2000).

JUSTICE DESAI, M.C. AND AIYAR, SUBRAMANYAM: LAWLEXICON &LEGALMAXIMS,

2ND

ED.,DELHI:DELHI LAW HOUSE (1980).

MITRA, B.C. & MOITRA, A.C., LEGAL THESARUS, UNIVERSITY BOOK, ALLAHABAD

(1997).

MOYS, ELIZABETH M., CLASSIFICATION & THESAURUS FORLEGALMATERIAL, 3RD

ED.,LONDON:BOWKER SAUR (1992).

OPPE., A.S., WHARTONSLAWLEXICON, 14

TH

ED., NEW DELHI: SWEET & MAXWELL(1997).

PREM, DAULATRAM, JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 1ST ED., JAIPUR: BHARAT LAW

PUBLICATION (1992).

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT,2010

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950


5/19

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page iv ofxi


INTERNET SITES

Official Sites

http://mpa.nic.in/

http://www.cag.gov.in/

Legal Sites

http://www.findlaw.com

http://www.indiankanoon.com

http://www.indlawinfo.org/

http://www.jstor.org.

http://www.judis.nic.in

http://www.lawsofindia.org

http://www.manupatra.com

http://www.scconline.com

http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com


6/19

-LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS- Page v ofxi


LL II SS TT OO FF AA BB BB RR EE VV II AA TT II OO NN SS

A.I.R. ALLINDIAREPORTER

AC APPELLATECOURT

All ALLAHABAD

AP ANDHRA PRADESH

Art. ARTICLE

Bom BOMBAY

Cal CALCUTTA

Co. COMPANY

Comm. COMMISSIONER

CrLJ CRMINALLAWJOURNAL

Del DELHI

e.g. EXEMPLUM GRATIA(FOR EXAMPLE)

Ed. EDITION

JT JUDGMENTSTODAY

Lah LAHORE

LR LAWREPORTER

Mad MADRAS

MANU MANUPATRA

p. PAGE

Para. PARAGRAPH

Pun PUNJAB ANDHARYANA

QB QUEENSBENCH

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASESSCR SUPREMECOURTREPORTER

SCW SUPREMECOURTWEEKLY

Sec. SECTION

Supp SUPPLEMENTARY

U.O.I. UNION OFINDIA

US UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

v. VERSUS(AGAINST)


7/19

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION- Page vi ofxi


SS TT AA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF JJ UU RR II SS DD II CC TT II OO NN

TTHHEEPPEETTIITTIIOONNEERRSS HHAAVVEE AAPPPPRROOAACCHHEEDD TTHHEEHHOONNBBLLEESSUUPPRREEMMEECCOOUURRTT OOFFIINNDDIIAA UUNNDDEERR

AARRTTIICCLLEE3322 OOFF TTHHEECCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONN OOFFIINNDDIIAA,, WWHHIICCHH RREEAADDSS AASS HHEERREEUUNNDDEERR::

__________________________________________

3322..RREEMMEEDDIIEESS FFOORR EENNFFOORRCCEEMMEENNTT OOFF RRIIGGHHTTSS CCOONNFFEERRRREEDD BBYY TTHHIISSPPAARRTT..

((11)) TTHHEE RRIIGGHHTT TTOO MMOOVVEE TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT BBYY AAPPPPRROOPPRRIIAATTEE PPRROOCCEEEEDDIINNGGSS FFOORR TTHHEE

EENNFFOORRCCEEMMEENNTTOOFFTTHHEERRIIGGHHTTSSCCOONNFFEERRRREEDD BBYYTTHHIISSPPAARRTTIISSGGUUAARRAANNTTEEEEDD..

((22)) TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT SSHHAALLLL HHAAVVEE PPOOWWEERR TTOO IISSSSUUEE DDIIRREECCTTIIOONNSS OORR OORRDDEERRSS OORR WWRRIITTSS,,

IINNCCLLUUDDIINNGG WWRRIITTSS IINNTTHHEENNAATTUURREEOOFFHHAABBEEAASS CCOORRPPUUSS,, MMAANNDDAAMMUUSS,, PPRROOHHIIBBIITTIIOONN,, QQUUOO WWAARRRRAANNTTOO

AANNDD CCEERRTTIIOORRAARRII,, WWHHIICCHHEEVVEERR MMAAYY BBEE AAPPPPRROOPPRRIIAATTEE,, FFOORR TTHHEE EENNFFOORRCCEEMMEENNTT OOFF AANNYY OOFF TTHHEE

RRIIGGHHTTSSCCOONNFFEERRRREEDD BBYYTTHHIISSPPAARRTT..

((33)) WWIITTHHOOUUTT PPRREEJJUUDDIICCEE TTOO TTHHEE PPOOWWEERRSS CCOONNFFEERRRREEDD OONN TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT BBYY CCLLAAUUSSEE ((11))

AANNDD((22)),,PPAARRLLIIAAMMEENNTT MMAAYYBBYYLLAAWW EEMMPPOOWWEERR AANNYYOOTTHHEERR CCOOUURRTT TTOO EEXXEERRCCIISSEE WWIITTHHIINN TTHHEE LLOOCCAALL

LLIIMMIITTSS OOFF IITTSS JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONN AALLLL OORR AANNYY OOFF TTHHEE PPOOWWEERRSS EEXXEERRCCIISSAABBLLEE BBYY TTHHEE SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT

UUNNDDEERR CCLLAAUUSSEE((22))..

((44)) TTHHEE RRIIGGHHTT GGUUAARRAANNTTEEEEDD BBYY TTHHIISS AARRTTIICCLLEE SSHHAALLLL NNOOTT BBEE SSUUSSPPEENNDDEEDD EEXXCCEEPPTT AASS OOTTHHEERRWWIISSEE

PPRROOVVIIDDEEDD FFOORR BBYYTTHHIISSCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONN..

__________________________________________


8/19

-SYNOPSIS OF FACTS- Page vii ofxi


SS YY NN OO PP SS II SS OO FF FF AA CC TT SS

ROFLS COMING

TO POWER:MARCH

2005

The Radical Organisation for Freedom and Liberty Party (ROFL) came into

power in March 2005. One of their campaign promises was to reduce if not

completely stop power cuts by use of nuclear power.

NUCLEAR POWER

POLICY DECISION:

JUNE 2005

In June 2005, the Government took a policy decision to set up a nuclear

power station in Bondavi District of Brinji state and also set up mining

activities in Pakodavi district in Brinji state, which had rich uranium ore

deposits, using open pit and underground mines for extraction.

JOINT HIGH LEVEL

COMMITTEE SET

UP

To study the technical, scientific, environmental and economic feasibility of

the project. All the members of the Committee were of exemplary repute in

their respective fields but had at some point in their careers, served with the

Government under the ROFL regime earlier

WRIT PETITION BY

GAYA

Filed before the Supreme Court of Dasoi against the decision of Government

to set up uranium mines and nuclear plants, on various grounds including

threat to environment and life and a subsequent direction for clean energy

practices to be adopted by Dasoi.

NUCLEAR PLANT

BECAME

OPERATIONAL:

JULY 2008

The nuclear power plant became operational in July 2008 and the project was

initially a success

NEW URANIUM

MINE SET UP

The Government therefore, commissioned another uranium mine in

Chapappu district in the state of Gongura, which has vast areas of reserve

forests and perennial rivers that serves as a potable water source for 6 statesin Dasoi.

REPORT OF KEERI

MADE PUBLIC:

NOVEMBER 2010

An independent panel of experts from Keeri, an association actively

promoting clean energy and educating the public on the ill-effects and

dangers of nuclear energy on the people and environment, carried on a

detailed study for over 2 years and made their report public

EARTHQUAKE IN

THE STATE OF

BRINJI:2010

While the matter stood thus, an earthquake of magnitude 6 on the Richter

occurred in the state of Brinji. The storage tank containing radioactive waste

in the Bondavi plant was damaged and caused a radiation leak which resulted

in the death of 150 farmers and damage to almost 200 acres of farm lands.NUCLEAR DAMAGE

CLAIMS

COMMISSION

An application was filed which dismissed the application quoting Section 5

of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.

SUPREME COURT

OF DASOI

The said order, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act and more

specifically Section 5, were challenged before the High Court of Brinji under

Article 226 of the Constitution by the affected parties. The Supreme Court of

Dasoi withdrew the writ petitions pending before the High Courts of Gongura

and Brinji and clubbed it along with the writ petition pending before it and

placed the matter for final hearing.


9/19

-QUESTIONS PRESENTED- Page viii ofxi


QQ UU EE SS TT II OO NN SS PP RR EE SS EE NN TT EE DD

TTHHEEPPEETTIITTIIOONNEERRSS RREESSPPEECCTTFFUULLLLYY AASSKKSS TTHHEEHHOONNBBLLEESSUUPPRREEMMEECCOOUURRTT OOFFIINNDDIIAA,, TTHHEE

FFOOLLLLOOWWIINNGGQQUUEESSTTIIOONNSS::

11.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE DDEECCIISSIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT TTOO SSEETT UUPP UURRAANNIIUUMMMMIINNEESS AANNDD NNUUCCLLEEAARR PPLLAANNTTSS WWAASS JJUUSSTTIIFFIIEEDD??

22.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT CCAANN BBEE HHEELLDD LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORR TTHHEE DDAAMMAAGGEETTOO TTHHEE EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF TTHHEE MMIINNIINNGG AANNDD PPOOWWEERR PPLLAANNTT

AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS??

33.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE CCIIVVIILL LLIIAABBIILLIITTYY OOFF NNUUCCLLEEAARR DDAAMMAAGGEE AACCTT 2200112211,,SSEECCTTIIOONN55 IINN PPAARRTTIICCUULLAARR,, IISS UUNNCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL??

44.. WWHHEETTHHEERR TTHHEE OORRDDEERR PPAASSSSEEDD BBYY TTHHEE NNUUCCLLEEAARR DDAAMMAAGGEE CCLLAAIIMMSSCCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN IISSVVOOIIDD??

1Hereinafter referred to as the Act


10/19

-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS- Page ix ofxi


SS UU MM MM AA RR YY OO FF AA RR GG UU MM EE NN TT SS

1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP URANIUM MINES AND NUCLEARPLANTS WAS JUSTIFIED?

1.1THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DUTY-BOUND TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE ENVIRONMENT UNDERTHE CONSTITUTION OF DASOI.

1.2THAT THERE IS AN ADDED DUTY IN CASE OF MINING OPERATIONS DUE TO ITS DANGEROUSNATURE.

1.3THAT THE DECISION WAS TAKEN WITHOUT COMPLETE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND HENCEPREMATURE.

1.4THAT THE TIMING OF THE DECISION IMPLIES LACK OF GOOD FAITH.1.5THAT THE KEERI REPORT IS EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.

2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THEENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF THE MINING AND POWER PLANT ACTIVITIES?

2.1THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOT ONLY REGULATE THE ACTS OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN MININGOPERATIONS BUT ALSO REGULATE ITSELF ON THE SAME STANDARD

2.2THAT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR PENALTY FOR CONTRAVENTION WITH THE MINERALSCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT RULES WHICH CAN BE APPLIED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS

WELL.

3. WHETHER THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT 20122, SECTION 5 INPARTICULAR, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

3.1THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 213.2THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14

4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE NUCLEAR ORDER CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IS VOID?4.1THAT SINCE THE ACT ITSELF,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS VOID ANY ORDER MADE UNDER THE

ACT SHALL ALSO BE VOID.



11/19

-PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES- Page 1 of14


PP LL EE AA DD II NN GG SS AA NN DD AA UU TT HH OO RR II TT II EE SS

1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP URANIUM MINES AND NUCLEARPLANTS JUSTIFIED?

1.1 It is submitted before this Honble Court that the decision of setting up of uranium extractionmines and nuclear power plants by the Government in June 2005 was premature and

unjustified.

1.2 It is humbly submitted that the Government has been given certain duties under theConstitution as caretakers of the welfare of the nation. Some of these entail protection and

conservation of the environment. Article 48A was inserted in the Constitution of Dasoi so as

to ensure that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to

safeguard the forest and wildlife activities. Such a duty has also been imposed on the citizens

of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and

wildlife under Article 51A. Further right to life under Article 21 includes within its ambit the

certain vital necessities namely air, water and soil. This Honble Court has repeatedly said

that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes

the right to of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.3

The

natural resources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in

irreversible damage to the environment. Such provisions of law make it amply clear that the

environment is not to be taken lightly and the Government has a duty to towards it.

1.3 This Honble Court has recognized the hazards relating to mining in the case ofM.C. Mehtav. Union of India

4. It was distinguished that mining operation is hazardous in nature; it

impairs ecology and people's right of natural resources. The entire process of setting up and

functioning of mining operation require utmost good faith and honesty on the part of the

intending entrepreneur.5

Thus, the endeavour of undertaking mining operations are to begoverned not only by the principles of environmental protection in the Constitution but also

with the added burden of utmost good and honesty due to its inherent dangerous nature.

1.4 In the instant matter projects undertaken were open pit and underground mines for extractionof uranium ore.

6These processes are inherently known to have an adverse impact on the

3Subhash Kumarv. State of Bihar, [1991] 1 SCR 5.

4

[2004] 3 SCR 126.5M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [2004] 3 SCR 126.

6Page 2, Paragraph 1 of the Fact Sheet.


12/19



environment due to the complete destruction of the habitat, flora and fauna as large tracts of

land are cut into for the purpose of exploration and extraction of minerals. Therefore, such

projects must be undertaken only after making complete investigations that satisfactorily

conclude that there will be an overall positive impact of the project. In the instant matter itcannot reasonably be said that complete and satisfactory investigations were undertaken

taking into account facts such as the submission of the report of the Joint High Level Expert

Committee within 2 months and the association of its members with the ROFL.7

1.5 It is humbly submitted that it must be kept in mind that the timing of this policy decision wasrather incredulous. The decision was taken around the same time that other countries were

phasing out their nuclear programs due some nuclear disasters. In light of such disasters such

a decision shows lack of good faith and can be called hasty and premature. If there is a

concern over the safety of nuclear power projects in countries where the technology has

existed longer, it would only be prudent to take a step back rather than a step forward in ones

own country.

1.6 It is reverentially submitted that apart from less than favourable sequence of events in theimplementation of the disputed Government Policy, the Keeri Report made public in

November 2010 makes it clear that the decision was also harmful to the environment in the

long run. The report gave findings of two years of research revealing that there had been

damage to the marine ecosystem, pollution in large water bodies and a decrease in the

number of Olive Ridley Turtles in the coast.8

Further cause for concern was the finding that

the power plants fell within the Seismic Zone II.9

It cannot be denied that there must be a

balancing of developmental and environmental needs. This is very aptly contained in the

concept of sustainable development. This Court has previously defined sustainable

development to mean the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be

sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation, in these matters, the required

standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided

in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's" test.10

It is evident that from the facts

brought forth by the Keeri Report that the guiding principle of sustainable development has

not been followed as there has been great loss to the environment due to the mining activities.

7 Page 2, Paragraphs 2 and 3.8

Page 4, Paragraph 2.9Ibid.

10Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 408.


13/19



Such factual evidence of the impact of the projects vindicates the allegation that the decision

taken by the Government was not justified.

1.7 Making reference to the prevalent legal duties towards the environment, rights regarding theenvironment and the facts of the instant case it is submitted that the action of the Government

in setting up the uranium mines and power plant was premature and unjustified.

2. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THEENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF THE MINING AND POWER PLANT ACTIVITIES?

2.1 It is submitted that the Government can be held liable for the damage to the environmentbecause of the mining and power plant activities.

2.2 It is submitted that as mentioned earlier the Government is duty bound to endeavour toprotect and improve the environment. For the sake of specificity and clarity this

Constitutional duty has been incorporated in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and

Development) Act, 1957 as well. Section 18(1) of the Act is aimed towards Mineral

Development wherein it is stated that It shall be the duty of the Central Government to take

all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and systematic development of

minerals in India and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any

pollution which may be caused by prospecting or mining operations. The Government has

been empowered to make rules that are in furtherance of this duty. The subject matter of

these rules is stated in Section 18(2). Section 18(3) further provides that All rules made

under this section shall be binding on the Government. making it clear that the Government

must not only regulate the acts of persons involved in mining operations but also regulate

itself on the same standard in cases where mining operations are undertaken by the

Government itself.

2.3 It is submitted that the rules in this respect have been laid down in the Minerals Conservationand Development Rules, 1988 of which the relevant rules concerning the environment are in

Chapter V. The rules pertaining to the protection and conservation of the natural environment

in the course of mining operations are not merely directory rather they are mandatory in

nature. This can be asserted with a certainty as can be seen from the usage of the word shall

in rules ranging from protection to restoration of environment. Further Rule 58 lays down a

strict penalty for those who contravene with the rules of two years imprisonment or fine

extending to fifty thousand rupees or both. In view of Section 18(3) there is no doubt that the


14/19



rules for mineral conservation are applicable to the Government as well, including the penalty

provision. In light of these provisions it is submitted that the Government can be held liable

to for damage caused to the environment due to the mining and power plant activities.

3. WHETHER THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT 201211, SECTION 5 INPARTICULAR, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of India that Section 5 of the Act is

indeed unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of

Dasoi. The same shall be proved through subsequent arguments.

3.1 THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 213.1.1 It is humbly submitted that Section 5 of the Act states as follows:

5. (1) An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage where such

damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to-

(i) a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character; or

(ii) an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism.

(2) An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage caused to-

(i) the nuclear installation itself and any other nuclear installation including a

nuclear installation under construction, on the site where such installation is

located; and

(ii) to any property on the same site which is used or to be used in connection

with any such installation; or

(iii) to the means of transport upon which the nuclear material involved was

carried at the time of nuclear incident:

Provided that any compensation liable to be paid by an operator for a nuclear

damage shall not have the effect of reducing the amount of his liability in

respect of any other claim for damage under any other law for the time being

in force.

(3) Where any nuclear damage is suffered by a person on account of his own

negligence or from his own acts of commission or omission, the operator shall

not be liable to such person.

It is amply clear that the section aims to hedge the responsibilities of the Operator in certain

situations, i.e natural disasters, armed conflict etc. This implies that the act has not

incorporated the Absolute Liability or Polluter Pays principles that provide no defences to

corporations for the damage caused by them even in cases where the has been due diligence

or a high standard of care.



15/19



3.1.2 It is humbly submitted that The precautionary Principal necessitates that if there are

reasonable scientific grounds for believing that a process, product or technology may not besafe then the industry must not be allowed to proceed ahead unless that industry or

establishment is able to demonstrate reasonable certainty of no harm. This principle can also

be applied to existing technologies when new evidence appears suggesting that they are less

safe than what the society had previously expected, as has been in the case of tobacco,

greenhouse gases, chloro-floro carbons, genetically modified food etc. This Honble Court in

A. P. Pollution Control Boardv. M V Nayudu12

, held that precautionary principle is part of

the law of the land. The principle mandates that when a new technology or process can cause

serious and irreversible harm to human health and the environment, precautionary measures

should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established

scientifically.

3.1.3 It is submitted that Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. Even low intensity radiation

termed safe by the respondents in instances of radiation leakages, can cause irriversible

genetic alterations in the human body and the long-termimplications of it have not yet been

fully understood, as evident from a scientific article published in The Hindu on September

15, 2011 by K.S. Parthasarathy, Raja Ramanna Fellow in Department of Atomic Energy

which states The findings of the present study emphasize that a level of radiation exposure

considered safe' by regulatory standards can induce profound biochemical and cellular

adaptation.

3.1.4 Further, the argument used by the proponents of nuclear energy that nuclear power is free

from carbon-emissions is baseless as is conclusively demonstrated in an article written byeminent energy researcher Prof. Benjamin Sovacoolwhere he records the carbon-emission

cost of construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and finally plant

decommissioning that are all part of the lifecycle emissions of a nuclear plant.

3.1.5 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the official international organization

which is seen as a proponent of nuclear energy, did a study of 582 uranium mines and

deposits world-wide in 2001. Even IAEA was forced to acknowledge the severe shortage of

12(1999) 2 SCC 718


16/19



uranium and it stated As we look into the future, presently known resources fall short of

demandit will become necessary to rely on very high cost conventional or unconventional

resources to meet demand as lower cost known resources are exhausted. The Government

does not seem to have learnt a lesson from Fukushima, Chernobyl or the Three Mile Islandaccidents and has also ignored cost-benefit calculations forgetting the experience of infamous

Enron power project. The promotion of nuclear power on a massive scale at huge cost to the

exchequer is a classic example as to how the Governments policy gets disconnected from

concern for public welfare and gets corrupted and subverted by extraneous considerations and

corporate pressures. It is to be noted that each nuclear power plant has a life span of about

40 years after which it has to be decommissioned and decontaminated at exorbitant cost

running into thousands of crores of rupees.

3.1.6 It is thus amply clear from all of the above that Nuclear Energy is not a viable long term

alternative, one that is prone to disasters and one that can be harmful to the public in its safest

forms. Keeping all of this in mind, there is a clear violation of the fundamental right to a

clean environment as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of Dasoi. In a catena of

cases, such as N.D Jayal and Anr. v. Union of India as well as M.C Mehta v. Union of

India13

, it has been reiterated that the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental

right. In different context, the right to development is also declared as a component of Article

21 in cases like Samata v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , and in Madhu Kishore v. State of

Bihar. Through excessive expenditure of public money in developing Nuclear Energy, which

as explained above is a non viable source of energy, it is submitted there the Right to

Development of Indian citizens is also being impeded.

3.2 THAT THE ACT,SECTION 5 IN PARTICULAR, IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 143.2.1 It is reverentially put forth that the Governments plans fordevelopment and expansion of the

nuclear power programme and construction of newer and huge nuclear power plants without

undertaking a thorough safety and comparative cost-benefit analysis, clearly made under

the influence of foreign countries and multi-billion dollar nuclear industry, shows arbitrary

decision-making, based on extraneous considerations and non-application of mind. The same

is in violation of Article 14 the Constitution of India. This is clear from the fact that even the

approval of the committee was done by member who had at some point been involved with

13W.P. Number 295 of 1992


17/19



the ROFL government. Also, the approval was granted in a very short span of 2 months,

which is paltry with respect to the magnitude of the project being undertaken.

3.2.2 Public hearings, that are mandatory under law before an environment clearance is given,

have not been properly conducted and the strong opposition of large local populations hasbeen ignored. The same is arbitrary, defeats the objective of mandatory public hearings and

violates Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by this very court

that arbitrary and capricious actions are in violation of the Constitution of Dasoi14

.

4. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE NUCLEAR ORDER CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IS VOID?It is simply put forth that this merely an extension of the previous issue. Since the Act itself,

Section 5 in particular, is void, it is but obvious that any order passed under the act also be

held void.

14Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Anr., 2004 3 SCC 214


18/19

-PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page 8


PP RR AA YY EE RR FF OO RR RR EE LL II EE FF

WWHHEERREEFFOORREE IINN TTHHEE LLIIGGHHTT OOFF TTHHEE IISSSSUUEESS RRAAIISSEEDD,, AARRGGUUMMEENNTT AADDVVAANNCCEEDD,, RREEAASSOONNSS GGIIVVEENN AANNDD

AAUUTTHHOORRIITTIIEESS CCIITTEEDD,, TTHHIISSHHOONNBBLLEECCOOUURRTT MMAAYY BBEE PPLLEEAASSEEDD TTOO::

II.. DDEECCLLAARREETTHHAATT TTHHEE TTHHEE DDEECCIISSIIOONN OOFF TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT TTOO SSEETT UUPP UURRAANNIIUUMM

MMIINNEESS AANNDD NNUUCCLLEEAARR PPLLAANNTTSS JJUUSSTTIIFFIIEEDD

IIII.. DDEECCLLAARREE TTHHAATT TTHHEE GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT CCAANN BBEE HHEELLDD LLIIAABBLLEE FFOORR TTHHEE DDAAMMAAGGEE TTOO

TTHHEE EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF TTHHEE MMIINNIINNGG AANNDD PPOOWWEERR PPLLAANNTT AACCTTIIVVIITTIIEESS

IIIIII.. DDEECCLLAARREETTHHAATT TTHHEECCIIVVIILLLLIIAABBIILLIITTYY OOFFNNUUCCLLEEAARRDDAAMMAAGGEEAACCTT22001100,,SSEECCTTIIOONN

55 IINN PPAARRTTIICCUULLAARR,, IISS UUNNCCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL

IIVV.. DDEECCLLAARREE TTHHAATT TTHHEE OORRDDEERR PPAASSSSEEDD BBYY TTHHEE NNUUCCLLEEAARR OORRDDEERR CCLLAAIIMMSS

CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN IISS VVOOIIDD

AANNDD AANNYY OOTTHHEERR RREELLIIEEFF TTHHAATT TTHHIISSHHOONNBBLLEE CCOOUURRTT MMAAYY BBEE PPLLEEAASSEEDD TTOO GGRRAANNTT IINN TTHHEE

IINNTTEERREESSTTSS OOFF JJUUSSTTIICCEE,, EEQQUUIITTYY AANNDD GGOOOODD CCOONNSSCCIIEENNCCEE

AALLLL OOFFWWHHIICCHHIISSRREESSPPEECCTTFFUULLLLYYSSUUBBMMIITTTTEEDD..


19/19

-PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page 9

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

CCOOUUNNSSEELLSS FFOORR TTHHEEPPEETTIITTIIOONNEERRSS

Documents

Petitioner Working New_Edited