I.

Whether the PIL filed by the "Save Blue" seeking interference of Supreme Court is
maintainable?

Public Function is one which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section
of the public”1.Institutions engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the functions
performed, government agencies.2

I.1 Petition is Maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

The petetion in concern here is maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. As
mentioned in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution "Definition in this part, unless the context
otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the
Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India"3
In this case concerned it was the Goverenment of Sindia who launched a Ocean Power Project in
Sabath Island which ultimately became the matter of dispute and also led to violation of
fundamental right.

I.2 Interference of Save Blue is Maintainable

It is humbly submitted before the court of law that PIL filed by the "Save Blue" is maintainable
in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Justice P.N. Bhagwati in
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India4, articulated the concept of PIL as follows, any member of the
public or social action group acting bonafide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts
or the Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of a legal or constitutional rights of
persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court. Where
a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by
reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention
of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or
legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons by

1
Binny Ltd. And Anr. v. Sadasivan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 320
2
Sukhdev and Ors v. Bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC 1331
3
Art. 12, The Constitution of India , 1950.
4
AIR 1982 SCC 149.
reasons of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position
unable to approach the court for relief, any member of public can maintain an application for an
appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of
fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32
seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or determinate
class of persons.
In this case PIL filed by Save Blue seeking interference of Supreme Court should be
maintainable as it is a social action group exclusively devoyed to research and other work to
developed marine ecosystem.5 The issue or matter in concern, based on constitutional features or
otherwise being such, it can be brought up for consideration by any person of the community or a
citizen.6
It has been seen in the recent past that due to government intervention in the costal zones the
crocodile have lost there natural habitat7 and now has started to movement in the human habitat
due to which some American tourist were also attacked and killed.8 Also it has been noted that
due to unreasonable interference of the government in the costal zones the island has witnessed
severe amount of aquatic animal dead9 in the she shore which is of a grave concern.

I.3 Fundamental Rights were Violated.

It is humbly submitted before the court of law that PIL filed by the "Save Blue" is maintainable
in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution grants its citizen the right to Constitutional remedies which means that a person has
right to move to Supreme Court for getting his fundamental right protected. In this case
concerned the law passed under CRZ 2019 is violative of the fundamental right provided under
part III of the Constitution of India.
I.3.1 Violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
That the law passed under CRZ 2019 deprives the tribal people of Hamanta island to carry on
their occupation which is meant to be protected under the constitution of India, also the right to
environment has been recognised as a fundamental right environmental protection

5
Fact sheet, page 4, ¶2.
6
R. Venkataramani, senior Advocate. S.C. Raina, Professor of law, University of Delhi, Restatement of Indian law
PIL, Universal.
7
Fact sheet, page 3,¶3 .
8
Fact sheet, page 2, ¶3.
9
Ibid.
under Article 21.10

According to Article 21 "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law." Here the term life and personal liberty also includes
the right to livelihood 11.

The existence of legal right of a person which is alleged to have been voilated constitutes the
foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of court.12 That in this case concerned the Law passed
under CRZ 2019 has severely affected the life’s of tribal people. The government launched a
huge ocean power project in Sabath Island wherein 10 coastal villages were taken up and given
rehabilitation including the two villages native tribes whose primary occupation is fishing13. The
main occupation of the Islander's is fishing and tourism with little agriculture. 14 It is worth
mentioning that the people living near the coastal region were solely dependent on fishing as a
means of occupation and by giving them rehabilitation would surely deprive them of their means
of occupation.

Therefore it is humbly submitted that PIL is maintainable because the rights of the tribal people
has been violated by the government itself. Failure of government to follow the CRZ regulation
and hampering the ecosystem is sufficient to show that the rights has been violated and PIL is
maintainable.

10
Nagar Palika, Dehradun v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 LLR 705.
11
Olga Tellis & Ors. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, AIR 1986 SC 18.
12
Ghulam Qader v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33: JT 2001 (9) SC 231.
13
Supra note 3.
14
Supra note 4.