Today, in the year 2025, we have been experiencing the drastic consequences of large scale destruction of environment on human lives in the capital city of our country and in many other cities. At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing. Therefore, coming out with measures such as the 2021 Official Memorandum is violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment. It also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the Courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment. In fact, the Courts should comedown heavily on such attempts. As stated earlier, the 2021 OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment. Apart from violation of Article 21, such action is completely arbitrary which is violative article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
(Extracted with edits from Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 718)
What was the central controversy in the petition, Vanashakti v. Union of India?
Show Hint
- The constitutional validity of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- The determination of pollution load standards for Category 'B' projects.
- The ex post facto grant of Environmental Clearance (EC).
- The delegation of powers to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks to identify the main issue or controversy in the case from which the passage is extracted.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage heavily criticizes an "Official Memorandum" (OM) for protecting "those who have caused harm to the environment" and who have "flouted the EIA notification". It talks about project proponents who went ahead with construction without prior clearance, taking a "conscious risk". The legal term for granting clearance after the project has already started or been completed is "ex post facto" clearance. The passage's strong condemnation of this practice indicates that the validity of such retrospective clearances was the central issue.
- Option (A) is incorrect as the validity of the parent Act was not the issue.
- Option (B) is too specific and not the main theme of the passage.
- Option (D) deals with delegation, which is not mentioned.
- Option (C) perfectly captures the essence of the controversy described: granting environmental clearance after the fact to projects that violated the law by not obtaining it beforehand.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The central controversy in the petition was the grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance.
The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, which mandates prior EC, was issued by the Central Government under which primary legislation?
Show Hint
- The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
- The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks for the parent or primary Act under which the EIA Notification, 2006 was issued.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) is an "umbrella" legislation that gives wide-ranging powers to the Central Government to protect and improve the environment. Section 3 of the EPA empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment. Under this power, the government issues various rules and notifications. The EIA Notification, which mandates prior environmental clearance for certain projects, is one such notification issued under the authority of the EPA, 1986.
- The other acts listed have different, more specific purposes: Wildlife Protection, Biodiversity, and establishing the NGT. The EPA is the broad framework legislation for environmental regulation.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The EIA Notification, 2006 was issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Supreme Court reiterated a concluded finding that the concept of ex post facto or retrospective Environmental Clearance (EC) is:
Show Hint
- Detrimental to the environment but permissible under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- Completely alien to environmental jurisprudence and the EIA notification.
- A necessary measure to bring defaulting entities into regulatory compliance.
- A valid administrative decision protected by Section 3 of the 1986 Act.
- Freedom is a notoriously complex and contested philosophical notion, and I won’t pretend to settle any of the big controversies it raises.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The question asks for the Supreme Court's established view on the legality and validity of ex post facto Environmental Clearance.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Supreme Court of India, in several landmark judgments, including Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, has held that the concept of ex post facto EC is fundamentally contrary to environmental law. The entire purpose of an Environmental Impact Assessment is to predict and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a project before any irreversible damage is done. Granting clearance after the project is already underway defeats this purpose. The court has described it as a "fait accompli" situation where the regulator is left with little choice. The passage reflects this view by stating that such actions are "violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification".
- (A) is incorrect. While the court has used Article 142 to balance equities, it has never held that ex post facto clearance is a permissible norm.
- (C) reflects the argument of the government/project proponents, not the finding of the court. The court has rejected this justification.
- (D) is incorrect as the court has found it to be contrary to the spirit and letter of the Act.
- (B) accurately captures the court's consistent position that this practice is alien to the principles of environmental law.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The Supreme Court has held that the concept of ex post facto EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence.
The EIA Notification 2006, mandates that prior Environmental Clearance (EC) must be obtained at what stage of a project?
Show Hint
- Before commencing operations or processes.
- Within six months of a project's completion.
- After the public hearing but before the final appraisal.
- Before any construction work, or preparation of land is started on the project.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The question asks for the specific stage at which prior Environmental Clearance is legally required under the EIA Notification, 2006.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The EIA Notification, 2006, is very clear about the "prior" nature of the clearance. The term "prior" means before any activity related to the project begins on the ground. This includes not just the main construction or operation but also preparatory work like site clearance, levelling of land, etc. The idea is to assess the environmental impact before any irreversible change is made to the site.
- (A) is too late; much of the environmental damage from construction would have already occurred by the time operations commence.
- (B) is ex post facto and illegal.
- (C) is a stage within the EC process, not the point before which EC must be obtained.
- (D) correctly identifies the earliest stage. The clearance is required before any physical work starts on the project site.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Prior EC must be obtained before any construction work, or preparation of land is started on the project.
Allowing for ex post facto clearance was held to be contrary to which two fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence?
Show Hint
- Doctrine of Necessity and Principle of Stare Decisis.
- Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.
- Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development.
- Doctrine of Sovereign immunity and doctrine of Public Trust
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks to identify two core principles of environmental law that are violated by the practice of granting ex post facto clearance.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the principles:
- Precautionary Principle: This principle states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The EIA process is a classic application of this principle – you assess the risk *before* you act. Ex post facto clearance completely violates this by allowing the action to proceed without prior assessment of risk.
- Sustainable Development: This principle seeks to balance development and environmental protection. It ensures that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. A key component of sustainable development is the integration of environmental considerations at the earliest stages of decision-making, which is what the EIA process does. Ex post facto clearance prioritizes development first and considers the environment later (if at all), which is the antithesis of sustainable development.
- Polluter Pays Principle applies after pollution has occurred. While related, it's not the primary principle violated by the *process* of ex post facto clearance itself.
- Public Trust Doctrine relates to the government's duty to protect natural resources for the public. While violated, the most directly offended principles are precautionary and sustainable development.
- The other options (A and D) list principles not as directly relevant to the procedural violation inherent in ex post facto clearance.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Allowing for ex post facto clearance is fundamentally contrary to the Precautionary Principle and the principle of Sustainable Development.
Top Questions on Environmental Law
With the Paris Agreement, countries established an enhanced transparency frame work (ETF). Under ETF, starting in 2024, countries will report transparently on actions taken and progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It also provides for international procedures for the review of the submitted reports.
The information gathered through the ETF will feed into the Global stocktake which will assess the collective progress towards the long-term climate goals. This will lead to recommendations for countries to set more ambitious plans in the next round.
Although climate change action needs to be massively increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked low-carbon solutions and new markets. More and more countries, regions, cities and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive across economic sectors representing 25% of emissions. This trend is most noticeable in the power and transport sectors and has created many new business opportunities for early movers. By 2030, zero-carbon solutions could be competitive in sectors representing over 70% of global emissions.
(Extracted with edits from the website UNFCCC.INT)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
- Air Pollutant under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 would include: (A) Solid Substance
(B) Liquid Substance
(C) Noise
(D) Chimney Choose the correct answer from the options given below:- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Environmental Law
- In which of the following case it was laid down that 'Universities to prescribe compulsory course on environment at every level in college education':
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Environmental Law
- __________ means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property, or the environment as per Section 2 (e) of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
- In which of the following cases the Supreme Court has recognized the right against the adverse effects of climate change?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Environmental Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts