munotes®
Sign in
Home / KSLU Solved Papers / B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) / Sem 10 / Environmental Law / 2011 Jan / Solutions

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 Environmental Law 2011 Jan Question Paper with Solutions

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Environmental Law

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10

2011 Jan Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

munotes.in

First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.

Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.

Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.

Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.

munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.

The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.

The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2011 Jan examination.

munotes.in ii

Contents

The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2011 Jan examination, in the order it was set.

MarksPage

munotes.in iii

MarksPage

munotes.in iv

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2011 Jan examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.

Duration 3 hours  ·  Total marks 100  ·  20 questions answered

Instructions printed on the paper

  • N.B. (1) Answer all 5 questions. (2) One essay type and one short note question or problem from each Unit have to be attempted, which is referred as part (a) and (b) in all the Units. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answers should be written either in English or Kannada completely.

How to use this volume

Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Read the original question paper

munotes.in v

Q1

Unit I

munotes.in 1

(a)Explain traditional and modern approach to environment.[15]

Answer

For full marks, cover: what "approach" means here (the attitude of a society, and of its law, towards nature); Part I, the traditional approach in its two forms: (1) the traditional Indian outlook of reverence and restraint (Vedic and Upanishadic thought, ahimsa, the Arthashastra, Ashoka, sacred groves, the Bishnois; Chinnappa), and (2) the traditional legal approach up to about 1972 (nature as property and revenue; nuisance, negligence and Rylands v. Fletcher; the Penal Code and section 133 of the old Criminal Procedure Code; scattered statutes such as the Shore Nuisances Act 1853, the Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act 1905 and the Indian Forest Act 1927), with its features and weaknesses; Part II, the modern approach after Stockholm 1972: holistic, preventive and precautionary, comprehensive statutes and expert institutions, constitutional duties and rights, judge-made principles, absolute liability, open access to courts, international co-operation, an ecocentric turn and public participation, each with its law or case; a comparison table; how the modern law draws on the tradition; and a conclusion.

munotes.in 2

What "approach" means

An approach to the environment is the way a society, and its law, looks at nature. Nature may be seen as a mother to be revered, or a resource to be used. It may be a neighbour's property to be respected, or a living system to be kept whole. Two broad approaches can be traced in India. The traditional approach came first, in two forms: an ancient cultural outlook and an older legal method. The modern approach took shape after the Stockholm Conference of 1972.

Part I: the traditional approach

(1) The traditional Indian outlook: reverence and restraint

  1. Nature as sacred. Vedic hymns praise the earth, the rivers, the sun and the winds as divine. The Atharva Veda's hymn to the Earth treats her as a mother and people as her children. Rivers such as the Ganga were worshipped, and trees such as the peepal and the banyan were not to be cut.
  2. Restraint in use. The Isha Upanishad teaches enjoyment through renunciation: take only what you need and do not covet what belongs to others. Use was allowed, but greed was condemned.
munotes.in 3
  1. Non-violence (ahimsa). Buddhism and Jainism extended compassion to all living beings. This shaped an outlook in which animals and plants had value of their own.
  2. Rules of the State. Kautilya's Arthashastra fixed graded fines for cutting trees and harming animals in protected forests. Ashoka's pillar edicts forbade the killing of many species and the burning of forests.
  3. Community practice. Villages kept sacred groves untouched. In 1730 at Khejarli, Bishnoi villagers led by Amrita Devi are said to have given their lives to save khejri trees from felling.

The Supreme Court has recognised this heritage. In K.M. Chinnappa v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606, it referred to Kautilya, Manu and Ashoka to show that conservation is old in Indian thought.

Its strength and its limit. The outlook taught balance and humility. But it rested on faith and custom, not enforceable rights. It could not restrain a factory, a mine or a city, and it gave way as forests were opened for revenue and industry grew.

(2) The traditional legal approach, up to about 1972

munotes.in 4
  1. Nature as property and revenue. Land, water and forests were seen as resources to be owned and exploited. The Indian Forest Act 1927 was mainly a revenue and management law. It aimed at timber and duty more than conservation.
  2. Pollution as a private wrong. Harm was dealt with by the law of torts. A neighbour could sue for nuisance or negligence. Under Rylands v. Fletcher (1866, affirmed 1868), a person who brought a dangerous thing onto land answered for its escape, subject to exceptions.
  3. Public nuisance in criminal law. The Penal Code of 1860 punished public nuisance and fouling of water and air (sections 268, 277 and 278). The Magistrate could order a nuisance removed under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  4. Scattered statutes. A few laws dealt with local problems. The Shore Nuisances (Bombay and Kolaba) Act 1853 let the Collector remove nuisances below high-water mark. The Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act 1905 dealt with smoke in Calcutta. They were local, narrow and rarely enforced.

Its features and weaknesses.

  1. Reactive. The law acted only after harm was done, and usually after it was proved.
munotes.in 5
  1. Individual. A private person needed special damage to sue for a public nuisance, so a common harm often had no plaintiff.
  2. Piecemeal. No law looked at air, water and land together.
  3. Anthropocentric and proprietary. Nature was protected only as someone's property or health.
  4. Weak sanctions. Fines were small, and nobody was charged with preventing pollution.

Part II: the modern approach

The Stockholm Conference of June 1972 and the growing science of ecology changed the outlook. The modern approach treats the environment as a single system that the State must actively protect.

  1. Holistic. Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 defines environment to include water, air and land. It adds the inter-relationship among them and with living things and property. The law now sees connections, not separate objects.
  2. Preventive. Under the modern Acts the polluter must obtain consent before discharging or emitting (Water Act s.25; Air Act s.21). Large projects need prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006.
munotes.in 6
  1. Precautionary. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715, the Supreme Court made the precautionary principle part of Indian law. Where serious harm is threatened, lack of scientific certainty is no excuse for delay. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812, put the burden of proving safety on the industry.
  2. Comprehensive laws and expert bodies. The Water Act 1974, the Air Act 1981 and the umbrella EPA 1986 replaced scattered statutes. Pollution Control Boards and, since 2010, the National Green Tribunal with expert members supervise them.
  3. Constitutional duties and rights. The Forty-second Amendment (1976) added Article 48A (the State's duty) and Article 51A(g) (the citizen's duty). The courts read a right to a healthy environment into Article 21 (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420).
  4. Judge-made principles. Sustainable development and the polluter pays principle (Vellore), and the public trust doctrine (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388), now guide decisions. Section 20 of the NGT Act 2010 makes the Tribunal apply them.
munotes.in 7
  1. Stricter liability. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Oleum Gas Leak case), AIR 1987 SC 1086, the Court rejected the exceptions in Rylands v. Fletcher for hazardous industry. It laid down absolute liability, measured by the size of the enterprise.
  2. Open access to courts. Public interest litigation lets any citizen or group raise a common harm. In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622, residents compelled a municipality to perform its sanitary duty.
  3. International co-operation. India acts on treaties on climate, ozone and biodiversity. The Air Act and the EPA were made under Article 253 to implement international decisions.
munotes.in 8
  1. An ecocentric turn. In Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund for Nature-India v. Union of India, decided on 15 April 2013, the Court said that its approach "should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric". It applied a "species best interest standard" to the Asiatic lion. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547, read animal welfare law in the same spirit. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 597, the Court recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change.
  2. Participation. Public hearings in environmental clearance, the right to information and the role of the gram sabha give people a voice in decisions.

The two approaches compared

PointTraditionalModern
View of naturesacred (culture); property and revenue (law)a single living system
Timingafter the harmbefore the harm
Scopelocal and piecemealnational and comprehensive
Who actsthe injured individualthe State, expert Boards, any citizen
munotes.in 9
PointTraditionalModern
Liabilitynuisance, negligence, Rylandsabsolute liability; polluter pays
Source of dutyreligion, custom, propertyConstitution, statutes, treaties
Centre of concernhumans (in law)humans and other life (ecocentric)

How the modern law draws on the tradition

The two approaches are not wholly opposed. The modern law has absorbed several traditional ideas. Restraint in use reappears as sustainable development. Compassion for living beings is written into Article 51A(g). Community conservation, of which sacred groves are the oldest form, now has statutory backing in the community reserves of the Wild Life Act (section 36C). The old nuisance remedies survive too. Section 133 became section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the remedy used in Ratlam.

munotes.in 10

Conclusion. The traditional approach had two faces. The ancient Indian outlook treated nature with reverence and restraint (Chinnappa), but it lacked legal force. The older legal method treated nature as property and handled pollution as a private nuisance, after the harm and piece by piece. The modern approach, shaped by Stockholm, is holistic, preventive and precautionary (Vellore, Nayudu). It rests on comprehensive statutes and expert bodies, on Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g), and on absolute liability (Oleum) and open access to courts (Ratlam). It increasingly values nature for its own sake (the lions case, Nagaraja). At its best it joins the old wisdom of restraint to the modern machinery of enforcement.

munotes.in 11

The rest of the answers

The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 10 solved papers.

You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.

Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in

The question paper itself stays free.

Issue

Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.

Done!