KSLU Solved Question Papers
Environmental Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2019 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 Environmental Law 2019 Dec 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 2019 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2019 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2019 Dec 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.
Q1What is sustainable development ? Explain the role of courts in this regard.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the concept in brief (the Brundtland definition, needs and limits, the three pillars, Rio Principles 3 and 4); how Indian courts made it law (Vellore, N.D. Jayal; NGT Act s.20); the decided cases grouped by the kind of dispute: forests and natural resources (Rural Litigation, Ganesh Wood Products, Goa Foundation); siting of industry and land acquisition (Kenchappa, Nayudu); balancing development with protection (Essar Oil, Bombay Dyeing); pollution and its cost (Tirupur); large projects and the displaced (Narmada, N.D. Jayal); climate and clean energy (Hindustan Zinc, Ranjitsinh); what the cases teach; the criticism; and a conclusion.
The concept
Sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". This is the definition in Our Common Future (1987), the Brundtland Report. It rests on two ideas: the needs of the poor come first, and development must stay within the limits of what nature can bear. It has three pillars: economic growth, social equity and environmental protection.
The Rio Declaration 1992 made it the organising idea of environmental law. Principle 3 asks that development meet the needs of present and future generations. Principle 4 says environmental protection is an integral part of development, not something apart from it.
How Indian courts made it law
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715. Tanneries in five districts of Tamil Nadu discharged untreated effluent onto farm land and into the Palar river, the main source of drinking water. The tanneries earned foreign exchange and gave jobs. The Supreme Court called sustainable development a "balancing concept between ecology and development". It held it part of customary international law, and so of Indian law. Its essential features included the precautionary and polluter pays principles. Tanneries could continue only with treatment plants, and had to pay for the harm.
Parliament later wrote it into section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, which the Tribunal must apply.
Forests and natural resources
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652. Limestone quarrying in the Doon Valley caused landslides and dried up springs. The Court accepted that natural resources must be tapped for development, but with care for ecology and water. It closed the most harmful quarries and spared others. This early case already shows the balance that sustainable development requires.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149. Katha factories, which use khair trees, were approved without any survey of how much khair the forests could supply. The Court called this "a totally faulty and a myopic approach". The present generation has no right to use up all the forests and leave nothing for the future. Forest industry must be matched to the forest's sustainable yield.
Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590. Iron ore mining continued in Goa after the leases expired. The Court held it illegal. In the interests of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, it capped annual extraction until an expert study. It also directed that ten per cent of sale proceeds go into a permanent fund for future generations.
Siting of industry and land acquisition
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa, AIR 2006 SC 2038. Village grazing and residential land near Bengaluru was acquired for an industrial area. The Court adopted the Brundtland definition and said development and environment must go hand in hand. It directed that environmental effects be assessed before land is acquired for industry. Clearance from the Pollution Control Board must come before an allotment agreement.
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, AIR 1999 SC 812. An industry wanted to make castor oil derivatives in the catchment of Hyderabad's drinking water lakes. Applying the precautionary principle, a part of sustainable development, the Court put the burden of proving safety on the industry. It referred the scientific questions to an expert body.
Balancing development and protection
Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, AIR 2004 SC 1834. Oil pipelines were to cross a marine national park in the Gulf of Kutch. The Court held that protection under the Wild Life Act is rigorous but not absolute. Environment and development must be balanced, so the pipelines were allowed on strict conditions, including relocating corals at the company's cost.
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, AIR 2006 SC 1489. The redevelopment of closed textile mill lands in Mumbai was challenged as taking away open space. The Court accepted sustainable development as part of Indian law. But it held that the planning regulation did not impair sustainable development, and upheld it. The case shows that the concept does not always favour stopping a project.
Pollution and its cost
Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association, AIR 2010 SC 3645. Dyeing units polluted the Noyyal river and an irrigation dam. The Court held that the polluter pays and precautionary principles must be read with sustainable development. The units had to pay to clean the river and dam and to compensate farmers.
Large projects and the displaced
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751. The Sardar Sarovar dam was challenged for its environmental and human cost. The majority allowed construction to continue, but the height could be raised only in step with the relief and rehabilitation of those displaced. Development went ahead, with conditions. The dissenting judge would have stopped further construction until the environmental impact was properly assessed, a reminder of how differently the balance can be struck.
N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867. In the Tehri dam case, the Court held that the right to environment and the right to development are both fundamental rights. So sustainable development is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. It treated rehabilitation of the displaced as a corollary of Article 21.
Climate and clean energy
Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, decided on 13 May 2015. Companies with captive power plants had to buy a share of renewable energy. The Court upheld the duty, relying on the Kyoto Protocol and on Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g).
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 Court recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change and balanced the bird against clean energy through an expert committee.
What the cases teach
- Sustainable development is part of Indian law and of Article 21.
- It is a balancing test, not a ban on development.
- Its tools are precaution, polluter pays, impact assessment and intergenerational equity.
- Courts often let projects proceed with conditions rather than stopping them.
- Rehabilitation of those displaced is part of it, not a favour granted afterwards.
Criticism
- The concept is vague, and each side invokes it.
- In big projects the balance has often tilted towards development, as in Narmada.
- The tests depend on honest impact studies, which are often lacking.
- Courts lack the expertise to weigh complex trade-offs, and must rely on committees whose reports may be disputed.
- Equity among the living, the second pillar, receives less attention than growth and protection.
Conclusion. Sustainable development means meeting present needs without harming the ability of future generations to meet theirs. Vellore and N.D. Jayal made it part of Indian law and of Article 21. The courts have applied it to forests and minerals (Ganesh Wood Products, Goa Foundation) and to the siting of industry (Kenchappa, Nayudu). They have balanced projects against ecology (Essar Oil, Bombay Dyeing, Narmada), made polluters pay (Tirupur) and reached climate change (Ranjitsinh). It works best as a disciplined balance, tied to precaution and assessment.
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.