Role of Indian Judiciary in the evolution of environmental jurisprudence — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Which case held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air?

   • Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India
   • Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (correct answer)
   • Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
   • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)

   Explanation. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Court held that life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (1985), it had earlier read the right to a healthy environment into Article 21.

2. What was the actual outcome of the writ petition in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar itself?

   • Allowed, with heavy compensation ordered
   • Dismissed for lack of bona fide public interest (correct answer)
   • Referred to a larger bench
   • Withdrawn by the petitioner

   Explanation. The petition itself was dismissed because the Court found it driven by a private commercial dispute rather than genuine public interest.

3. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle were read into Indian law in:

   • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)
   • Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (correct answer)
   • Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
   • T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

   Explanation. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) established both principles as part of Indian environmental law.

4. Under the precautionary principle, the burden of proving an activity is environmentally safe lies on:

   • The affected citizens
   • The industry or project proponent (correct answer)
   • The Pollution Control Board alone
   • The judiciary

   Explanation. The precautionary principle shifts the burden onto the industry to show its activity is environmentally safe.

5. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India applied which principle to permit dam construction to continue?

   • Absolute liability
   • Sustainable development (correct answer)
   • Res ipsa loquitur
   • Doctrine of pleasure

   Explanation. The Court applied sustainable development, balancing developmental benefit against displacement, conditioned on proper rehabilitation.

6. What was the vote split among the three judges in Narmada Bachao Andolan?

   • Unanimous
   • 2:1 (correct answer)
   • 4:1
   • 3:0

   Explanation. The decision was 2:1, with Justice Bharucha dissenting.

7. Section 20 of which Act directs the application of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle?

   • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
   • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
   • National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (correct answer)
   • Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

   Explanation. Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 codifies these three judge-made principles into statute.

8. The continuing mandamus in T.N. Godavarman is best understood as an example of:

   • Legislative delegation of power
   • Judicial supervision of executive environmental administration (correct answer)
   • Executive override of judicial orders
   • A treaty-implementation mechanism

   Explanation. Continuing mandamus in this case represents the judiciary taking on ongoing supervision of forest administration nationwide.

9. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985), the Supreme Court:

   • Closed the most harmful limestone quarries and read the right to a healthy environment into Article 21 (correct answer)
   • Decided the Bhopal Gas case
   • Laid down absolute liability
   • Decided a case under the NGT Act

   Explanation. The Court closed the most harmful limestone quarries and read the right to a healthy environment into Article 21.