KSLU Solved Question Papers
Environmental Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2016 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 Environmental Law 2016 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
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 2016 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Jun 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 · 13 questions answered
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.
Q1'Article 21 of Indian Constitution is wide enough to encompass various aspects of right to clean environment and earn livelihood" - Discuss with the help of leading cases.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the text of Article 21 and its wide reading (Maneka Gandhi); Part A, the right to a clean environment and its aspects, each with a case (water and air, Subhash Kumar; sanitation, Koolwal; open spaces, Virendra Gaur; ground water, Perumatty; common village resources, Jagpal Singh; climate, Ranjitsinh); Part B, the right to livelihood and its aspects (pavement and slum dwellers, Olga Tellis; workers' health, Consumer Education and Research Centre; sewer workers, Delhi Jal Board; tribals and forest dwellers, Samatha, Niyamgiri; the displaced, Narmada, N.D. Jayal); Part C, how the courts reconcile the two when they collide (Kanpur tanneries, Taj Trapezium, Rural Litigation, sustainable development); a table; an assessment; and a conclusion.
The text and its wide reading
Article 21 says: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." It names neither the environment nor livelihood.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. The petitioner's passport was impounded without reasons. The Supreme Court held that the procedure that deprives a person of life or liberty must be "fair, just and reasonable". It read "life" to mean a life with dignity, not mere animal existence. That wide reading is what lets Article 21 encompass both a clean environment and the means of earning a living.
Part A: the right to a clean environment
1. Pollution-free water and air. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420. The petitioner alleged that collieries were discharging slurry into the Bokaro river. The Supreme Court declared that the right to life "includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life". A citizen may move the Court to remove pollution that impairs life.
2. Sanitation. L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 Raj 2. Citizens complained of filth throughout Jaipur. The High Court held that insanitation causes slow poisoning and violates the right to life. The municipality's plea of lack of funds was rejected.
3. Open spaces and hygiene. Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577. Open space at Thanesar, Kurukshetra, under a town planning scheme had been leased for building. The Supreme Court held that the right to live with dignity includes protection of the environment, free from pollution of air and water, with sanitation. It ordered the land restored.
4. Ground water. Perumatty Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala, 2004 (1) KLT 731. A soft drinks plant at Plachimada was drawing so much ground water that nearby wells dried up. A single judge of the Kerala High Court held that the State holds ground water in public trust. The company had no right to extract so large a share, and was stopped from drawing it beyond a farmer's share. A Division Bench reversed this in part in 2005: a landowner may ordinarily draw ground water within reasonable limits.
5. Common village resources. Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 1123. A village pond recorded as panchayat land had been encroached and built over. The Supreme Court held that such common land belongs to the village community and cannot be given to private persons. It directed all States to evict encroachers and restore such land.
6. Protection from climate change. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 597. Power lines for solar and wind energy were killing the Great Indian Bustard. The Supreme Court recognised, under Articles 14 and 21, a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
Part B: the right to livelihood
1. Pavement and slum dwellers. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. Bombay decided to evict all pavement and slum dwellers and send them out of the city. The Constitution Bench held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, because no one can live without the means of living. Eviction would deprive them of their livelihood, so it had to follow a fair procedure. It directed that pavement dwellers counted in the 1976 census be given alternative pitches.
2. Workers' health. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922. Workers in the asbestos industry were contracting asbestosis. The Supreme Court held that a worker's right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21. It read Article 21 with Articles 39(e), 41, 43 and 48A. It ordered health records, insurance and compensation of one lakh rupees to each affected worker.
3. Sewer workers. Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers, (2011) 8 SCC 568. Sewer workers in Delhi were sent into manholes without safety equipment, and some died. The Supreme Court held that the State cannot escape its duty under Article 21 by using contractors. Workers have a right to safe working conditions.
4. Tribals and forest dwellers. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297. Government land in the tribal Scheduled Areas had been leased to non-tribals for mining. The majority held such leases void. Tribal land is the base of tribal livelihood and cannot be handed to outsiders.
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 476. Bauxite mining on the Niyamgiri hills threatened the Dongria Kondh's sacred and community lands. The Supreme Court held that the gram sabhas must first decide their rights under the Forest Rights Act 2006.
5. The displaced. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751. The Sardar Sarovar dam was to displace thousands. The majority let construction continue, but the height could rise only in step with relief and rehabilitation. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867, on the Tehri dam, held that rehabilitation of the displaced is a corollary of Article 21.
Part C: when the two rights collide
Closing a polluting factory protects the environment but costs jobs. The courts have tried to protect both.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Kanpur tanneries case), AIR 1988 SC 1037. Tanneries near Kanpur poured untreated effluent into the Ganga. The Supreme Court ordered those without treatment plants to close, knowing workers would lose jobs. It said that closure "may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people".
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Taj Trapezium case), AIR 1997 SC 734. Sulphur dioxide from industries near Agra was damaging the Taj Mahal. The Court ordered 292 industries to switch to natural gas or relocate. It protected the workers of relocating industries, with continuity of employment, a shifting bonus and gratuity.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 2187. After closing harmful quarries in the Doon Valley, the Court gave directions for reclaiming the land and rehabilitating the displaced workers.
The common principle is sustainable development, which N.D. Jayal held to be part of Article 21 itself. Development and livelihood may continue, but within the limits that keep the environment healthy.
The aspects at a glance
| Aspect of Article 21 | Case |
|---|---|
| Clean water and air | Subhash Kumar |
| Sanitation | Koolwal |
| Open spaces | Virendra Gaur |
| Ground water | Perumatty |
| Common village land | Jagpal Singh |
| Climate | Ranjitsinh |
| Livelihood of the poor | Olga Tellis |
| Workers' health and safety | Consumer Education and Research Centre, Delhi Jal Board |
| Tribal and forest livelihoods | Samatha, Niyamgiri |
| Aspect of Article 21 | Case |
|---|---|
| Rehabilitation | Narmada, N.D. Jayal |
| Balancing | Kanpur tanneries, Taj |
Assessment
The statement is accurate. From a single sentence about life and liberty, the courts have drawn rights to clean water and air, sanitation and open spaces. They have added protection from climate change. They have also drawn rights to livelihood, safe work and rehabilitation. When the two rights pull apart, the courts protect the environment first but soften the blow to workers and the displaced. The weakness lies in enforcement: rehabilitation and compensation orders are often slow to be carried out.
Conclusion. Article 21, read widely after Maneka Gandhi, encompasses the right to a clean environment and the right to earn a livelihood. The first covers clean water and air (Subhash Kumar), sanitation (Koolwal) and open spaces (Virendra Gaur). It also covers common resources (Perumatty, Jagpal Singh) and freedom from climate harm (Ranjitsinh). The second protects the poor (Olga Tellis), workers (Consumer Education and Research Centre, Delhi Jal Board), tribals (Samatha, Niyamgiri) and the displaced (Narmada, N.D. Jayal). Where they collide, the courts reconcile them through sustainable development, protecting workers even while closing polluters (Kanpur tanneries, Taj).
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.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.