The goal of this assignment is to research the Narmada Sagar Dam project case, and to particpate in a Moot Court exercise. For the purpose of our class, a moot court is a combination of a debate and an improvisational play. The idea is show case the arguments both pro and con for building the dam, as one might in a debate. But instead of doing this in a debate format. Each team must loosely script a small play, where the arguments are presented as they might have been presented in a court case.
Each student will role-play a part. The parts might include
There will be two groups. Each group will perform a loosely scripted improvisational play. Each group is alloted 35 minutes. The characters in the play should belong to different subgroups with different perspectives (i.e. different stakeholders).
It is up to you to determine how much time each subgroup receives testifying in the play.
It is up to you to assign people to different subgroups and roles.
This is a role-playing exercise. Factual details must be accurate, but there is some dramatic license allowed. Small non-consequential details may be "made up" to improve the performance. We want each performance to be realistic. If you are representing the NBA viewpoint you should speak as if you are a member of the NBA, such as one of the villagers.
In addition to the performance, each group will provide a short (1-2 page) program (or play-bill), where the scenes of the play are described, and the arguments that the group is trying to make in each scene are outlined. The purpose of this is to be sure the performance is not completely made up. It should have a point, and a structure, and this struture is made clear in the playbill. A copy of this playbill will be presented to both Liz and Tim at the beginning of each performance.
I will grade the moot-court exercise using the following rubric.
For your information, I have included below some background information, and part of the opinion of the court that first tried the case.
SOME BACKGROUND FROM THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE COURT
In April, 1994 the petitioner filed the present writ petition inter alia praying that the Union of India should be restrained from proceeding with the construction of the dam and they should be ordered to open the aforesaid sluices.... On 15th November, 1994, this Court called for the report of the Five Member Group and the Government of India was also directed to give its response to the said report.
CASE OF PETITIONERS
On behalf of the petitioners, the arguments of Sh. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, were divided into four different heads, namely, general issues, issues regarding environment, issues regarding relief and rehabilitation and issues regarding review of Tribunal's Award. The petitioners have sought to contend that it is necessary for some independent judicial authority to review the entire project, examine the current best estimates of all costs (social, environmental, financial), benefits and alternatives in order to determine whether the project is required in its present form in the national interest or whether it needs to be restructured/ modified. It is further the case of the petitioners that no work should proceed till environment impact assessment has been fully done and its implications for the projects viability being assessed in a transparent and participatory manner. This can best be done, it is submitted, as a part of the comprehensive review of the project.
While strongly championing the cause of environment and of the tribals who are to be ousted as a result of submergence, it was submitted that the environmental clearance which was granted in 1987 was without any or proper application of mind as complete studies in that behalf were not available and till this is done the project should not be allowed to proceed further. With regard to relief and rehabilitation a number of contentions were raised with a view to persuade this Court that further submergence should not take place and the height of the dam, if at all it is to be allowed to be constructed, should be considerably reduced as it is not possible to have satisfactory relief and rehabilitation of the oustees as per the Tribunal's Award as a result of which their fundamental rights under Article 21 would be violated.
While the State of Madhya Pradesh has partly supported the petitioners in as much as it has also pleaded for reduction in the height of the dam so as to reduce the extent of submergence and the consequent displacement, the other States and the Union of India have refuted the contentions of the petitioners and of the State of Madhya Pradesh. While accepting that initially the relief and rehabilitation had lagged behind but now adequate steps have been taken to ensure proper implementation of relief and rehabilitation at least as per the Award. The respondents have, while refuting other allegations, also questioned the bona fides of the petitioners in filing this petition. It is contended that the cause of the tribals and environment is being taken up by the petitioners not with a view to benefit the tribals but the real reason for filing this petition is to see that a high dam is not erected per se. It was also submitted that at this stage this Court should not adjudicate on the various issues raised specially those which have been decided by the Tribunal's Award.