Comprehension
Drinking water is of primary importance in any country. In fact, India is a party to the Resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference which reads as under:
“All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.”
Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. There is, therefore, need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them. Competing Human Rights to healthy environment and sustainable development.
“All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.”
Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. There is, therefore, need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them. Competing Human Rights to healthy environment and sustainable development.
Question: 1
In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and Human Rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and Human Rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Show Hint
Link between Article 21 and clean drinking water was expressly articulated in M.C. Mehta (2004).
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCALE 34
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development 2020 SCC OnLine SC 687
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Principle recognised in M.C. Mehta case.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right under Article 21, as it is essential for survival and health.
Step 2: Reasoning.
The Court linked the right to life with the right to water, recognising it as part of human rights and the State’s duty to ensure its availability and quality.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Bandhua Mukti Morcha concerned bonded labour and rehabilitation.
- (B) Narmada Bachao Andolan focused on displacement and rehabilitation due to dam construction.
- (C) 2020 MP case related to environmental protection, not specifically the foundational right to water under Article 21.
\[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right under Article 21, as it is essential for survival and health.
Step 2: Reasoning.
The Court linked the right to life with the right to water, recognising it as part of human rights and the State’s duty to ensure its availability and quality.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Bandhua Mukti Morcha concerned bonded labour and rehabilitation.
- (B) Narmada Bachao Andolan focused on displacement and rehabilitation due to dam construction.
- (C) 2020 MP case related to environmental protection, not specifically the foundational right to water under Article 21.
\[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following Courts was the first court to develop the concept of right to healthy environment as part of the Fundamental Right to life?
Which of the following Courts was the first court to develop the concept of right to healthy environment as part of the Fundamental Right to life?
Show Hint
Comparative constitutional law shows that environmental rights as part of right to life emerged internationally before Indian adoption.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Philippine Supreme Court
- Supreme Court of India
- European Court of Justice
- Supreme Court of South Africa
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Historical note.
The concept of the right to a healthy environment being recognised as part of the fundamental right to life was first judicially developed by the Philippine Supreme Court before similar developments in other jurisdictions.
Step 2: Relevance to India.
Indian courts later adopted and expanded the doctrine, particularly under Article 21 jurisprudence, drawing inspiration from global precedents including the Philippines.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) While progressive, India was not the first.
- (C) and (D) developed environmental rights later in different contexts.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
The concept of the right to a healthy environment being recognised as part of the fundamental right to life was first judicially developed by the Philippine Supreme Court before similar developments in other jurisdictions.
Step 2: Relevance to India.
Indian courts later adopted and expanded the doctrine, particularly under Article 21 jurisprudence, drawing inspiration from global precedents including the Philippines.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) While progressive, India was not the first.
- (C) and (D) developed environmental rights later in different contexts.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
In today’s emerging Jurisprudence, Environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as:
In today’s emerging Jurisprudence, Environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as:
Show Hint
Remember: Environmental rights = Third generation rights (solidarity/collective rights).
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- First generation rights
- Second generation rights
- Third generation rights
- Fourth generation rights
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding classification of human rights.
- First generation rights — Civil and political rights.
- Second generation rights — Economic, social, and cultural rights.
- Third generation rights — Solidarity rights, including environmental rights, right to development, and right to peace.
Step 2: Application.
Environmental rights are collective in nature, transcending national boundaries, and are thus categorised as third generation rights in modern human rights theory.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Hence, option (C) correctly classifies environmental rights.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
- First generation rights — Civil and political rights.
- Second generation rights — Economic, social, and cultural rights.
- Third generation rights — Solidarity rights, including environmental rights, right to development, and right to peace.
Step 2: Application.
Environmental rights are collective in nature, transcending national boundaries, and are thus categorised as third generation rights in modern human rights theory.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Hence, option (C) correctly classifies environmental rights.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
When was the first United Nations Water Conference held?
When was the first United Nations Water Conference held?
Show Hint
The Mar del Plata conference (1977) was the first to globally recognise water as a human right.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- 1975
- 1976
- 1977
- 1978
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Historical context.
The first United Nations Water Conference was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March 1977. It was the first intergovernmental conference devoted exclusively to water resources.
Step 2: Significance.
The conference adopted the Mar del Plata Action Plan, recognising access to drinking water as a basic human right and setting global goals for water supply and sanitation.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) 1975 and (B) 1976 predate the actual event.
- (D) 1978 is after the conference’s adoption.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
The first United Nations Water Conference was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March 1977. It was the first intergovernmental conference devoted exclusively to water resources.
Step 2: Significance.
The conference adopted the Mar del Plata Action Plan, recognising access to drinking water as a basic human right and setting global goals for water supply and sanitation.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) 1975 and (B) 1976 predate the actual event.
- (D) 1978 is after the conference’s adoption.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference says: All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water:
The resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference says: All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water:
Show Hint
Remember the exact phrase from the UN resolution — “in quantum equal to their basic needs.”
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- In quantum equal to their basic needs
- In quantum according to their age
- In quantum according to their natural needs
- In quantum according to their climatic conditions
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Key language from the resolution.
The UN resolution explicitly states that people have the right to access drinking water “in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs,” linking water rights to fundamental survival requirements.
Step 2: Understanding the scope.
This means water access should be sufficient to meet essential domestic, drinking, and sanitation needs, irrespective of a person’s location or economic status.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) and (C) introduce criteria not mentioned in the resolution.
- (D) “according to climatic conditions” is not part of the original wording.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
The UN resolution explicitly states that people have the right to access drinking water “in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs,” linking water rights to fundamental survival requirements.
Step 2: Understanding the scope.
This means water access should be sufficient to meet essential domestic, drinking, and sanitation needs, irrespective of a person’s location or economic status.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) and (C) introduce criteria not mentioned in the resolution.
- (D) “according to climatic conditions” is not part of the original wording.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
The right to access drinking water is a:
The right to access drinking water is a:
Show Hint
Article 21’s interpretation by the Supreme Court makes access to clean drinking water a Fundamental Right in India.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Statutory Right
- Fundamental Right
- Community Right
- Individual Privilege
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Constitutional basis.
The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple cases, including M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004), that access to clean drinking water is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Step 2: Why Fundamental Right?
Since Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and life cannot be sustained without access to safe drinking water, this right is elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Statutory Right is conferred by legislation, but here it is recognised directly under the Constitution.
- (C) Community Right is broader but not the specific constitutional classification.
- (D) Individual Privilege is not a legal category for such essential rights.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple cases, including M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004), that access to clean drinking water is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Step 2: Why Fundamental Right?
Since Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and life cannot be sustained without access to safe drinking water, this right is elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Statutory Right is conferred by legislation, but here it is recognised directly under the Constitution.
- (C) Community Right is broader but not the specific constitutional classification.
- (D) Individual Privilege is not a legal category for such essential rights.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Constitutional Laws
- In which landmark case the Apex Court addressed the systemic issue of child labor, focusing on constitutional rights and the role of the state in protecting children?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court has held that not all privately owned property is a "material resource of the community" in an 8:1 majority?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- The Supreme Court recently in a landmark decision has held that governor's delay in granting assent to 10 bills as erroneous and illegal, and granted assent to the Bills. Which provision of the Constitution was interpreted primarily in this case?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- In which case, the SC held that right to digital access is an intrinsic component of right to life and liberty, and directed the State to proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems that serve not only the privileged but also the marginalized?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
- The Supreme Court has overruled its decision in E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) relating to sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation purposes, in which case?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Live-in relationship, as such, as already indicated, is a relationship which has not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 475: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 478] it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. However, in order to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women, from being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, first time in India, the DV Act has been enacted to cover the couple having relationship in the nature of marriage, persons related by consanguinity, marriages, etc. We have few other legislations also where reliefs have been provided to woman placed in certain vulnerable situations. Section 125 Cr.P.C. of course, provides for maintenance of a destitute wife and Section 498-A IPC is related to mental cruelty inflicted on women by her husband and in-laws. Section 304-B IPC deals with the cases relating to dowry death. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to deal with the cases of dowry demands by the husband and family members. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides for grant of maintenance to a legally wedded Hindu wife, and also deals with rules for adoption. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 refers to the provisions dealing with solemnisation of marriage also deals with the provisions for divorce. For the first time, though, the DV Act, Parliament has recognised a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not a live-in relationship simpliciter. We have already stated, when we examine whether a relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” within the meaning of Section 2(f ) of the DV Act, we should have a close analysis of the entire relationship invariably, it may be a question of fact and degree, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex meets the tests judicially evolved.
(This extract is taken from Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools such as conceptual, procedural and institutional, to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges of how they have been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have charted.
The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the “law” element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of Lawyers and Judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle etc. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, State and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire eco-system. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere.
(Extract from Pragnesh Shah v. Arunkumar Sharma (2022) 11 SCC 493 )- CLAT PG - 2025
- Environmental Law
View More Questions