KSLU Solved Question Papers
Environmental Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 6
2021 Sep (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 6 Environmental Law 2021 Sep (100 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 31 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 2021 Sep (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Sep (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2021 Sep (100 marks) 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 · 15 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.
Q1Define air pollution. Explain how Indian Judiciary dealt with air pollution problem.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part I, air pollution defined (Air Act 1981 s.2(a) and (b); EPA s.2(b) and (c)), the main pollutants and sources, and their effects; Part II, how the judiciary dealt with air pollution, in stages, each with its case: smoke and dust as nuisance (Gobind Singh, Ram Baj Singh), clean air as part of Article 21 (Subhash Kumar), absolute liability for toxic gas (Oleum, the Bhopal orders), precaution and relocation to save a monument (the Taj Trapezium case), deadlines for vehicles and fuel (the Delhi order of 1998), deterrent compensation (Sterlite), and climate change (Ranjitsinh); the tools the courts used; the criticism; and a conclusion.
Part I: what air pollution is
The definitions. Section 2(b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 says "air pollution" means "the presence in the atmosphere of any air pollutant". Under section 2(a), an air pollutant is any solid, liquid or gaseous substance, "(including noise)", present in the atmosphere. It must be in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings, other living creatures, plants, property or the environment. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 uses the same idea. An environmental pollutant is a substance present in a concentration that may injure the environment (section 2(b)).
So air pollution is a matter of concentration and harm, and the harm may be to health, crops, buildings or nature.
The main pollutants and sources.
- Fine particles from vehicles, road and construction dust, crop burning and industry.
- Sulphur dioxide from coal-fired power plants and factories.
- Oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide from vehicles.
- Ozone at ground level, formed in sunlight from vehicle and factory gases.
- Toxic gases that may leak from chemical plants, such as methyl isocyanate at Bhopal and oleum in Delhi.
Effects. Breathing and heart disease and early death, acid rain that damages crops, lakes and monuments, smog, and climate change.
Part II: how the judiciary dealt with air pollution
Stage 1: smoke and dust as nuisance. Before special laws were used, courts treated smoke and dust as nuisances.
Gobind Singh v. Shanti Sarup, AIR 1979 SC 143. A baker's oven and chimney at Khanna sent out smoke injurious to the health of people nearby. The Magistrate ordered the oven and chimney demolished under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court upheld the demolition as a matter of public health, though not a ban on the whole trade.
Dr. Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal, AIR 1982 All 285. Dust from a brick-grinding machine entered a doctor's consulting chamber and coated his patients' clothes. The Allahabad High Court granted a permanent injunction. Substantial interference, judged by a reasonable person, was enough; harm to health need not first be proved.
Stage 2: clean air as a fundamental right.
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420. In a petition about river pollution, the Supreme Court declared that the right to life under Article 21 includes "the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life". A citizen may move the Court under Article 32 to remove such pollution. The petition itself failed, as it was brought for a private grudge.
Stage 3: absolute liability for toxic gas.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 (the Oleum Gas Leak case). In December 1985 oleum gas leaked from a Shriram plant in Delhi and affected many people. The Supreme Court refused to follow the English rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. It held that an enterprise in a hazardous industry is absolutely liable for harm from an escape, with no exceptions. Compensation must match its size and capacity.
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 273. After methyl isocyanate leaked at Bhopal in December 1984, the Union sued the American company for the victims. The Supreme Court recorded a settlement of 470 million US dollars in February 1989, for urgent relief. On review in 1991, Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248, it upheld the settlement but restored the criminal cases. It also made the Union of India responsible for any shortfall.
Stage 4: precaution and relocation to save a monument.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 734 (the Taj Trapezium case). Sulphur dioxide from foundries, chemical units, a refinery and glass factories formed acid rain that was yellowing and corroding the marble of the Taj Mahal. Expert reports advised removing the polluting industries. The Court applied the precautionary principle: a monument of world fame could not wait for scientific certainty. It ordered the 292 industries in the zone to switch to natural gas or move out, and protected the jobs and benefits of their workers.
Stage 5: deadlines for vehicles and fuel.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 2963 (the vehicular pollution order of 28 July 1998). The Government's own figures showed that vehicles caused about seventy per cent of Delhi's air pollution. The authority set up to tackle it found that nothing had been done. The Court, distressed at the administration's apathy, fixed deadlines itself. Commercial vehicles over fifteen years old were to stop plying, and the public transport fleet was to move to a single clean fuel. This led to Delhi's buses and autorickshaws running on CNG.
Stage 6: deterrent compensation.
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575. A copper smelter at Tuticorin had polluted the area through emissions and effluent beyond the Board's standards, and had run without renewed consents. The Court set aside a closure order because most defects had been cured. But it ordered compensation of one hundred crore rupees, scaled to the company's size, so that it would deter.
Stage 7: climate change.
M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280. The Court recognised a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21. Greenhouse gases are the widest form of air pollution, and the courts now treat them as a constitutional concern.
The statutes behind the courts' orders
The courts did not act in a vacuum. They enforced the Air Act 1981. Under it, States declare air pollution control areas (section 19), and industrial plants there need the Board's consent (section 21). Emissions may not exceed the Board's standards (section 22), and the Board may order closure or cut off power and water (section 31A). They also used the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, under which the Centre may issue directions (section 5) and set up authorities (section 3(3)). In the Delhi cases, an authority created by notification in January 1998 reported to the Court on compliance. Where Boards failed, the courts directed them to use these powers.
The tools the courts used
| Tool | Example |
|---|---|
| Magistrate's order to remove a nuisance | Gobind Singh |
| Injunction in tort | Ram Baj Singh |
| Article 21 right to clean air | Subhash Kumar |
| Absolute liability and compensation | Oleum, Sterlite |
| Tool | Example |
|---|---|
| Precaution, relocation and fuel change | Taj Trapezium |
| Deadlines and continuing supervision | Delhi vehicle orders |
Criticism
- Courts took technical decisions, such as choosing a fuel, that belong to experts and Governments.
- Orders were often delayed or diluted in practice, and Delhi's air remains poor.
- Relocation moved pollution elsewhere rather than ending it.
- The Boards, which should act first, often waited for the courts.
- Crop burning in neighbouring States, a major seasonal source of Delhi's smoke, lies largely beyond any single court order.
Conclusion. Air pollution under section 2(b) of the Air Act 1981 is the presence in the atmosphere of any harmful air pollutant, including noise. The judiciary first treated smoke and dust as nuisances (Gobind Singh, Ram Baj Singh), then made clean air part of Article 21 (Subhash Kumar). It created absolute liability for toxic gas (Oleum) and used precaution to save the Taj. It set deadlines that brought CNG to Delhi and imposed deterrent compensation (Sterlite). With Ranjitsinh it has reached climate change, though enforcement still lags behind its orders.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU LL.B. Semester 6 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, and so does the syllabus.
What should we fix or add?
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.