Comprehension
The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked for protecting the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, both of whom are on the verge of extinction. India faces a number of pressing near term challenges that directly impact the right to a healthy environment, particularly for vulnerable and indigenous communities including forest dwellers. The lack of reliable electricity supply for many citizens not only hinders economic development but also disproportionately affects communities, including women and low-income households, further perpetuating inequalities. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment encapsulates the principle that every individual has the entitlement to live in an environment that is clean, safe, and conducive to their well-being. The promotion of renewable energy sources plays a crucial role in promoting social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy of all segments of society, especially in rural and undeserved areas. This contributes to poverty alleviation, enhances quality of life, and fosters inclusive growth and development across the nation. Therefore, transitioning to renewable energy is not just an environmental imperative but also a strategic investment in India’s future prosperity, resilience and sustainability. The right to equality under Art. 14 and the right to life under Art. 21 must be appreciated in the context of the decisions of this court, the actions and commitments of the state on national and international level, and scientific consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. By recognising the right to a healthy
environment, states are compelled to prioritise environmental protection and sustainable development, thereby addressing the root cause of climate change and safeguarding the well-being of present and future generations.
(Extract taken from MK Ranjitsinh and Ors v. Union of India, 2024 SC)
environment, states are compelled to prioritise environmental protection and sustainable development, thereby addressing the root cause of climate change and safeguarding the well-being of present and future generations.
(Extract taken from MK Ranjitsinh and Ors v. Union of India, 2024 SC)
Question: 1
What is the objective of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?
What is the objective of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- To enforce international environmental treaties on climate change at national level
- To stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent dangerous human-induced interference with climate change
- To stabilize carbon footprints and oversee global diversity protection efforts
- All of the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is primarily. focused on preventing dangerous human-induced interference with the climate system by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This goal addresses the core issue of climate change mitigation and has been central to the international climate negotiations since the Convention’s adoption.
Thus, the correct answer is Option (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically addresses climate change?
Which of the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically addresses climate change?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- SDG 13
- SDG 13
- SDG 12
- SDG 15
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
SDG 13 specifically addresses climate change and focuses on urgent actions to combat it and its impacts. This goal aims to strengthen the global response to climate change by improving education, increasing awareness, and enhancing capacity on climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Thus, the correct answer is Option (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that any disturbance of the basic environment elements namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for life, would be hazardous to ‘life’ within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Art. 48A and 51A(g) must be interpreted in the light of Article 21?
In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that any disturbance of the basic environment elements namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for life, would be hazardous to ‘life’ within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Art. 48A and 51A(g) must be interpreted in the light of Article 21?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2000 SC
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 2000 SC
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1996 SC
- M.C. Mehta v. Union Carbide Commission, 1991 SC
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000 SC), the Supreme Court ruled that any disturbance to fundamental environmental elements like air, water, and soil would be hazardous to life under Article 21. The case emphasized the need to interpret Article 48A and 51A(g) in light of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, highlighting environmental protection as a core aspect of human rights.
Thus, the correct answer is Option (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
Which of the following statements are correct?
Which of the following statements are correct?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- The people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change as pervious interpretations of Article 21 solely focussed on individual freedoms and right to clean and pollution free environment
- Supreme Court for the first time recognized right to be free from adverse effects of climate change in its recent judgement MK Ranjitsinh and Ors v. Union of India, 2024 SC
- There is no separate recognition given by the Supreme Court for ‘right to be free from adverse effects of climate change’ as it was already recognised under ‘right to a clean environment’
- None of the Above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
In its 2024 ruling in the case of MK Ranjitsinh and Ors v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. This marked a significant development in constitutional law, expanding the interpretation of Article 21 to include environmental protection in the context of climate change.
Thus, the correct answer is Option (B).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following protocol focusses at limiting global temperature rise by reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change?
Which of the following protocol focusses at limiting global temperature rise by reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change?
Updated On: Dec 3, 2024
- The Montreal Protocol
- The Kyoto Protocol
- The Paris Agreement
- The Rio Declaration
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, is the global framework aimed at limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, with a focus on reducing carbon emissions. It is a pivotal international treaty that emphasizes climate action and the mitigation of global warming.
Thus, the correct answer is Option (C).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Environmental Law
- What does the principle of non-regression mean in International environmental law?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
- At the heart of Paris Agreement climate change regime is Intended National Determined Contributions (INDC). Which of the following best describes an INDC?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
- Match the following:Select the correct option:
I. Right to a wholesome environment is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1. Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of India (2005) 10 SCC 510 II. Right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21 2. Orissa Mining Corpn Ltd v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013) 6 SCC 476 III. Precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are part of law of the land 3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420 IV. Role of gram sabha in safeguarding the customary and religious rights of scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act 4. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
- Which of the following statement best outlines the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) in international environmental law?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
- What does the Basel Ban amendment address?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
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
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- 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
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions