Environmental Laws and Institutions — Practice Questions
UPSC Prelims-pattern practice questions on India's environmental law with explanations: EP Act, Forest Rights Act, NGT, chronology of Acts and Article 21.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
With reference to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, consider the following statements:
- It was enacted under Article 253 to implement decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in 1972.
- It allows any person to file a complaint in court after giving at least sixty days’ notice to the authorities.
- The Central Pollution Control Board was constituted under this Act.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statement 1 is correct — the Act’s preamble refers to the Stockholm Conference, and it rests on Article 253. Statement 2 is correct — Section 19 permits complaints by any person after 60 days’ notice. Statement 3 is incorrect — the CPCB was constituted under the Water Act, 1974.
Answer: B
Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which body is the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual and community forest rights?
Solution
Section 6 of the Act makes the Gram Sabha the authority to initiate the process. Its resolution is examined by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and finally approved by the District Level Committee. The Forest Department has no initiating role — a deliberate design to place forest dwellers at the centre.
Answer: A
With reference to the National Green Tribunal, consider the following statements:
- Its Chairperson must be a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court.
- It is bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- An appeal against its order lies to the Supreme Court within ninety days.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statements 1 and 3 are correct (Sections 5 and 22 of the NGT Act, 2010). Statement 2 is incorrect — under Section 19, the Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure and is guided by the principles of natural justice.
Answer: C
Arrange the following Acts in chronological order of their enactment:
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
- Environment (Protection) Act
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
- Biological Diversity Act
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
Water Act — 1974; Air Act — 1981; Environment (Protection) Act — 1986; Biological Diversity Act — 2002. Order: 3-1-2-4.
Answer: D
In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air?
Solution
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) read the right to pollution-free water and air into Article 21. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is the basic-structure case, Golaknath (1967) concerned Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights, and A.K. Gopalan (1950) took a narrow view of Article 21.
Answer: C
Explain the “polluter pays” and “precautionary” principles. How have Indian courts used them to strengthen environmental protection?
Solution
Introduction: The polluter pays principle places the cost of pollution and its remedy on the polluter; the precautionary principle requires preventive action even without full scientific certainty, shifting the burden of proof to the developer. Both feature in the 1992 Rio Declaration (Principles 15 and 16).
Body:
- Judicial adoption:
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996): polluting industries made liable to pay for restoring the damaged environment.
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996): both principles declared part of the law of the land as elements of sustainable development.
- M.C. Mehta (1987): absolute liability for hazardous industries, a stricter standard.
- Statutory recognition: Section 20 of the NGT Act, 2010 directs the Tribunal to apply sustainable development, precaution and polluter pays.
- Impact: closure and relocation of polluting units, compensation orders, environmental compensation by pollution control boards.
- Limitations: difficulty in valuing damage, recovery of compensation, risk that “pay and pollute” replaces prevention.
Conclusion: Indian courts have turned these principles into enforceable law; the next step is to embed them in regulatory practice so that prevention, not compensation, becomes the norm.