ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Should the State X be directed to halt the project till proper

Environmental Impact Assessment is done ?
The State X should not be directed to halt the Hydroelectricity
project .
1) Right to Electricity is the Right to Life.
In the present scenario electricity is a basic need of
life. In every aspect of life electricity is must needed
necessity. Even a single footstep without electricy has
become next to impossible.
Thus access to electricity has now become a right of
every human and any barrier to it shall cause violation of
human right.
In the case of I. Sheik Mathar vs. Tamilnadu
Electricity board (2013 ), Justice S. Manikumar quoted
access to electricity should be construed as a human
right. Denial of it could amount to violation of human
right. He further quoted that lack of electricity supply is
one of the determinative factor affecting education, health
and a cause of economy disparity, and consequently
inequality in society which leads to poverty. Also, lack of
electricity denies people with equal opportunity in the
matter
of
education
and
consequently
suitable
employment, sanitation and other socio- economic rights.
The judges in this case also laid down that it is the
fundamental duty of the authority to show compassion to
those people who has no access to electricity for long.
In this issue regarding halting of the hydroelectricity
project by State X, it is clear that any ban on the project
shall amount to violation of human rights. It is because the
people of State X and majority from other neighbouring
States are really in need of better electricity supply. Infact,
the project is aimed to the betterment of the Ubi Tribe itself
as they are backward and far away from any sign of
development. This project will help in their development
from all directions. Also, this project has a great impact in
the improvement of health facility, education, sanitation in
all over the State X.

Thus, halting the project shall be violating right to

health and life, right to education etc, which are
guaranteed under constitution.
Article 15 (1)(b) of the International Covenant on
Economic, social and cultural right (ICESCR) recognizes the
right of every person to enjoy the benefits of scientific
progress and its application. Article 11 (1) recognizes the
right of every one to an adequate standard of living for
himself and his family. The right to electricity is clearly
essential to achieving adequate standard of life. Electricity
is indispensable to the realization of important human
right including the right to dignity of person the right to
health and right to water.
2) Article 21 of the Constitution provides for protection of life
and personal liberty. Right to life means the right to live
meaningful, dignified and complete life. It doesnt have
restricted meaning.
Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty: no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law.
Thus, Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon
personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to
the procedure established by law. In case of deprivation of
such right the State has the responsibility to take due care.
In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Thr
Administrator Union Territory of Delhi and othrs. (), it was
lead down that Article 21 requires, no one shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the
procedure established by law and this procedure must be
reasonable, fair and just. The law of preventive detention
has therefore now to pass the test not only for Article 22,
but also 21 and if the constitutional validity of any such law
is challenged the Court would have to decide whether the
procedure laid down by such law for depriving a person of
his personal liberty, reasonable, fair and just.
In the case of Bandhu Mukti Morcha vs. Union of
India and othrs() it was laid down that Article 21 assures
the right to live life with human dignity, free from
exploitation. The State is under constitutional obligation
that there is no violation of fundamental rights of any

person. Both the Central and State Governments are duty

bound to ensure observation of the various social welfare
enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of the basic
human dignity in compliance with Directive Principals of
State Policy.
In the present issue the construction of the
hydroelectricity power project is to facilitate the people
with electricity. Right to electricity is the Right to life. Right
to life doesnt mean a mere animal existence of life. A life
without electricity can be equated to an animal life. Thus,
as the project has an aim of protecting right to life, the
State has no reason of halting the project infact it has a
duty to help in the development of the project as it aim in
basic human dignity in compliance with Directive Principles
of State Policy.
3) This Hydroelectricity Project is its flagship project aimed at
providing much needed water and electricity to the whole
of State X as well as its neighbouring States, i.e., aimed at
benefit of people at large. Also the State X has already
invested a substantial amount of its annual budget in this
project. The Government of State X has already prepared a
detailed plan for rehabilitation of the displaced person and
allocated sufficient funds for the same.
The hydroelectricity project in the District P of State
X is considered in here is a flagship as the impact of this
project is very large covering not only the State X but
including the neighbouring State also. The present
situation of State X can be recovered only from the
establishment of this project. This will give facilities such as
health, sanitation, education etc, causing a good impact on
Ubi Tribe in the P District together with the State at large.
With this project only problems of flooding of fields and
drought can be solved. As a whole it can be said that the
project aimed for a fair, just and reasonable purpose.
Thus, there is no reason of halting the project as it
involved the development in favor of people at large.
It has been observed in the case of Olga Tellis vs.
Bombay Municipal Corporation , AIR 1986 SC 180, that the

high purpose which the constitution seeks to achieve back

on conferment of fundamental rights is not only to benefit
the individual and to secure the large interest of the
community. Therefore, even if a person says either under
the mistake of law or otherwise that he would not enforce
any particular fundamental right, it cannot create an
estoppel against him.
The Supreme Court in this case emphasized that the
procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of life
conferred by Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable.
The procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of
his right to life must conform to the norms of just and fair
play.
Thus, in the present issue as a small portion of the
Ubi Tribe may be affected by the hydroelectricity project
such deprivation is in accordance to the procedure
established by law that is fair, just and reasonable.
The State X has already invested substantial amount
of money from its annual budget which is inferred from the
fact of the case. Thus, halting the project in this situation
may lead to economy crisis for the State.
Also, the State has taken substantial steps in order to
rehabilitate the persons which may get affected by the
project by giving proper inhabitable area for the displaced
persons and has allocated sufficient funds for the same
purpose which cannot be said to be unfair and unjust.
These steps were declared by the State at the time they
were doing their survey. So, the State has taken all due
care and responsibility for its people residing in the P
District.
Thus, there is no reason for why this project should
be halted.
4) Infact a survey had also been initiated before the approval
of the project.

The facts of the case clearly say that there was a

survey conducted by the Government before the approval
of the project. The Definition of the survey itself state that
any study where you collect data by asking people
question is a survey. The people who participate in a
survey are generally called respondents. In a survey
generally voluntary completion of a questionnaire or
interview can be taken as consent for this data to be used
officially.
As in this case survey was initiated before the
approval of the project