The 17th Pro Bono Enviro National Moot Court Competition, 2023 organized by TNDALU School of Excellence in Law seeks to bring to the forefront the increasing need to address environmental concerns and encourages students to be pioneers in understanding the complexities of environmental law and the urge for the same. The previous editions of the competition have proved to be an enriching experience for the participants owing to the distinctive, innovative, and challenging nature of the proposition and the high caliber of judging by various eminent lawyers, Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Madras, and the Supreme Court of India. Join us today as we take you on a journey filled with learning and memories!
The much anticipated finals begin at 3pm on 15th October 2023. The teams set go against each other in this.
The final rounds began at 3:30 pm on 15th October with an excited audience comprising of the students of the School of Excellence in Law. The bench for the final round consisted of Hon’ble Jutsice Seshasayee, Senior Advocate Raghavachari, Advocate V.P.Raman, and Mr.Sai Sathya jith. The rounds began with the first counsel on behalf of the appellants kicked off with a briefing of the case. The first counsel for the appellant on behalf of team Aldan argued that the project falls under para 8(b) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and emphatically relied on the facts of the proposition to substantiate her submissions. Hon’ble Justice Seshasayee of the Madras HC astutely points out that the proposition only mentions an intention to develop the initially discarded 30 hectares of land and doesn’t provide that such development in these 30 hectares had already commenced. Senior Counsel T. Raghavachari Sir directs the counsel to delve into the legal nuances governing the acquisition described in para 30 of the proposition and the participants were met with the new perspective that the entire 80 hectares of acquired land were not put into use in the project.
As the rounds continued, Hon’ble Justice Seshasayee inspired the participants to argue with orginality and expressed that the Bench was interested in hearing both teams to the fullest extent. Adv. V.P.Raman emphasized on the need to substantiate the link between the EC and the Antiqua Project of the project and the Counsel responded by mentioning that while development had began only for 50 hectares of land, 80 hectares of land were acquired by the APRJ Party, i.e., the Respondent. Maintaining a calm composure, the counsel addressed the questions put forth by the bench.
The Bench further instigated the counsel to explore the substantive question of law under the EIA Notification, 2006 with regards to the above-posed question, i.e., the link between the EC and the Novus Antiqua Project. Adv. Minna Joshi remarked that the Appellant representing the State Govt is bound to represent the activities carried out by all parties during their ruling tenure and not solely the party ruling at the time of hearing before the Bench.
The Bench perused the bare act and memorials submitted following a brief pause. The counsel one then rested the case allowing for the counsel two to proceed.
2nd Counsel for Aldan began on a confident note and was immediately halted by a question by Adv. VP Raman, to which the Counsel responded with reference to CRZ Zone IVA under the CRZ Notification, 2011, averring that the monument falls under this zone.
Counsel brought to the attention of the bench of Para 4.b of the 2011 CRZ Notification, while the bench simultaneously referred to it in their compendium.
This brings about a deliberation on para (j) of the notification.
Given the lack of brevity in the proposition with regards to the expenditure incurred on the project, the counsel estimated it to be Rs. 80 crores in response to a question in this regard posed by Minna. Senior. Adv. Raghavachari points out that the promotion of culture is not an exceptional case to warrant the construction of the Statue of Diversity.
Adv Sai pivoted the hearing to the provisions under the CRZ notification under which the Counsel refers to paragraph 8 of the notification. Followed by the questions put forth by the judges and with the intense session the counsel then rests the case.
To began with, the respondents Owed the reference to Sec. 100 of CPC in Sec. 22 of the NGT Act, the Counsel invoked the concept of substantive question of law to argue that the preferred appeals are not maintainable.
Adv V.P Raman points out that the existence of settled principles only means that such principles would not be ‘considered’ substantive questions of law and the same is not a bar to delving into the question of jurisdiction in the case at hand.
Hon’ble judge questioned the counsel on what is the question of law and the Counsel responded that this is derived from the Averments that the NGT Order was impugned to have been passed in violation of the settled principles of law. Senior Adv clarifies that a party ordered by the NGT is not guaranteed the right to appeal merely due to the fact that the order was passed against them.
Senior Adv V.Raghavachari and Hon’ble V.P.Raman clarified that the rigorous criteria for a substantive question of law governing a second appeal need not be as strict when it is to be satisfied to admit the first appeal. The Counsel had put forth a risky averment that the Novus A0ntiqua Park is a building project under para 8.b. of the EIA notification and not a project *under para 8.a. This argument was treated by the bench with a grain of salt. Adv Sai Sathya jit stated that since revenue will be generated from the Educational institution, it was commercial. But the Counsel argued that its intention was public welfare and cultural promotion and is hence not commercial.
The Counsel further brings the bench’s attention to para 16 where it is stated to be a multi-specialty hospital. Adv. Sai Sathya jit delves into the components which are exempt under the project and directs the counsel to argue in this regard with respect to the educational institution and the hospital.
Moving on to the fact that the Respondents & Appellant had approached the NGT in their political capacity, adv Sai Sathya jit questioned them as to how their nature of political party warrants them to approach the NGT. He pointed out that if it was an NGO or Environmental organisation then it would make sense to approach NGT but the present parties approached in their political capacity.
Senior Adv. Raghavachari Guided the counsel to submit that political parties represent the people and hence their political nature is immaterial, owing to which they were justified in approaching NGT in their political capacity. With this the counsel one had rest the case and counsel two started with her arguments
Addressing the second issue in the proposition, the Counsel placed reliance on the Keystone Reliance Judgement to argue that if there is a material reduction the built up area from 80 to 49 hectares was evasion of the EC requirement under the EIA Notification, 2006.
Stating that a mere 49-hectare program doesn’t attract the EC requirement, Hon’ble points out that had it been an individual who chose to piecemeal develop only a part of their land whose area is just below the the EC threshold of 50 hectares, then it would be suspicious. However, given the fact that the Appellant is the State acting in its sovereign capacity, there is no manifest presumption that peicemental development of 49 hectares out of 80 hectares was done to evade the EIA threshold.
The judges were satisfied by the arguments put forth by the counsels and hence no questions were asked further.
After a long discussion and heavy arguments by the finalists, the most awaited moment finally arrived where the judges proceeded to announce the results and the winners were team Aldan followed up by the runners up team orinoco
Followed by this best speaker, best researcher and best memorial results were announced today!
Congratulations to all winners! Last but not the least, a huge shoutout to Moot Court Association of School of Excellence in Law for the smooth conduct of the Competition. We would like to sign off by thanking all our Sponsors, judges and student coordinators for their presence throughout the Competition. Thank you for your precious time and worthwhile words. Additionally, we would like to congratulate all the winners and the participants for their active, enthusiastic, wholehearted presence at our event. Further, we express our utmost appreciation to SCC and EBC for accompanying us as our Knowledge Partners. On this note, this is Moot Court Association of SOEL signing off by wishing you all a wonderful year ahead. Thank you for staying updated throughout the event and we hope to resurge again soon. Thank you, everyone. Warm wishes to all!
