Moot Memorial Legal Strategies

Here are advanced arguments for Issue * regarding the liability of M/s Bhakthi Corporation and KIA:
*. Strict Liability Doctrine:
- Principle: Liability is imposed regardless of fault or intent, particularly in environmental cases due to the inherently hazardous nature of activities.
- Argument: Even if the industries claim compliance now, past non-compliance with environmental norms and regulations, proven through inspections and reports, holds them strictly liable for any damage caused.
*. Case Law - M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath:
- Precedent: Establishes the principle of holding entities accountable for environmental harm.
- Argument: Use this case to argue that industries must bear the environmental compensation for past violations, as they have a duty to prevent harm to the environment.
*. Evidence of Non-Compliance:
- Argument: Highlight the findings of the joint committee report which identified violations such as lack of valid consent orders and pollution control measures. These serve as substantial evidence against the industries.
*. Potential Defenses:
- Financial Duress Due to COVID: While industries may claim financial hardship as a defense, argue that environmental obligations are not negated by financial constraints, especially when public health and safety are at risk.
- Repair and Upgradation: Address claims of machinery repairs during inspections by emphasizing the continuous nature of non-compliance documented over time.
*. Legal Maxim - Qui facit per alium facit per se:
- Application: Argue that the industries' actions (or inactions) directly contribute to pollution, holding them responsible for the consequences.
*. Role of NGT and TNPCB:
- Argument: Discuss how the tribunal and board have acted within their powers to impose environmental compensation as corrective and preventive measures, and how compliance does not absolve retrospective liability.
These arguments should help you construct a detailed and compelling case for Issue * in your moot memorial.

Certainly, Nithar! Here's a detailed argument for the petitioner regarding the liability of M/s Bhakthi Corporation and KIA:
The petitioner contends that M/s Bhakthi Corporation and KIA are liable for environmental compensation due to their non-compliance with statutory norms, under the strict liability doctrine. This principle, often applied in environmental cases, imposes liability regardless of fault or intent, given the inherently hazardous nature of industrial activities. Despite the industries' claim of compliance now, their historical non-compliance has been substantiated through inspections and reports, which hold them strictly accountable for any environmental damage caused.
The precedent set in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath reinforces this argument, establishing the principle that entities must bear the consequences of environmental harm. The industries have a duty to prevent such harm, and they must compensate for past violations. The joint committee report serves as substantial evidence, identifying violations such as the absence of valid consent orders and inadequate pollution control measures.
While the industries may argue financial duress due to the COVID pandemic, the petitioner asserts that financial constraints do not negate environmental obligations, particularly when public health and safety are at stake. Moreover, claims of machinery repairs during inspections are countered by the continuous nature of documented non-compliance over time.
The legal maxim "Qui facit per alium facit per se" further supports the argument that industries' actions, or inactions, directly contribute to pollution, thus holding them responsible for the consequences. The role of the NGT and TNPCB is crucial as they have acted within their powers to impose environmental compensation as corrective and preventive measures, emphasizing that compliance does not absolve retrospective liability.
These arguments collectively build a compelling case for holding M/s Bhakthi Corporation and KIA liable for environmental compensation, ensuring accountability for their past actions.