To understand the nature of India's binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions through international treaties like the Paris Agreement, it's essential to comprehend India's obligations and legal context. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 specifically incorporated environmental protection into the Constitution via Article 48-A and Article 51-A (g). The Indian Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that both state and citizens have a fundamental duty to protect natural resources.
During COP 21, India was among 196 countries to sign the Paris Agreement, committing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Key objectives include generating 50% of energy from renewable sources, producing 500 GW from non-fossil fuels by 2030, and reducing carbon emissions by one billion tons. The Supreme Court's decision further enforces the right to a clean environment, aligning with Article 21 which guarantees the right to life, thus inferring a responsibility to maintain ecological balance.
Given this legal foundation and international commitment, the statement that best describes India's binding commitment is: The signatory may take adequate measures to reduce carbon emission. This reflects India's active and significant obligation to engage in measures that meaningfully address carbon emissions.
Given these explanations, the correct answer to what is explicitly mentioned in Article 51-A(g) is:
Only (A) and (B)The question is centered on the fundamental duty regarding the preservation and protection of natural resources as interpreted by the Supreme Court in India. The comprehension provided gives an overview of how environmental protection is integrated into the Indian Constitution, mainly through Articles 48-A and 51-A (g), and acknowledges the Supreme Court's stance on this matter.
The comprehension specifies that the Court's judgments have ruled that both the state and its citizens share the responsibility to safeguard natural resources. This is further solidified by statements about the state's duty to maintain ecological balance and the citizens' right to a clean environment.
Analyzing the answer options given:
Option | Description |
---|---|
The fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural resources is upon the State only | Incorrect, as the duty is shared with citizens. |
Citizens have the fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural resources | Incomplete, as the state also has this duty. |
Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources | Correct, aligns with the Supreme Court's interpretation and constitutional provisions. |
Citizen’s duty to maintain ecological balance and citizens’ right against climate change | Partially true but does not emphasize the state's responsibility. |
Thus, the correct answer is: Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources, as this reflects the shared responsibility emphasized by the Supreme Court and the Indian Constitution.
Match List-I with List-II
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]