Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Environmental Legislations
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 6 Environment and Legal Order
2016 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLM Group 6 Environment and Legal Order Environmental Legislations 2016 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU LLM student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 14 September 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the 2016 examination.
The law in these answers is stated as at September 2026, and five changes date most textbooks here. The Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure were replaced on 1 July 2024, so public nuisance is now section 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the magistrate's order to remove it section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Since 1 April 2024 most contraventions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 attract penalties imposed by an adjudicating officer, appealable to the National Green Tribunal, instead of prosecution. Coastal questions are answered on the CRZ Notification, 2019, and an amendment in force from 7 September 2023 takes coastal aquaculture outside its prohibitions. The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025 took effect on 9 April 2025, and the punishments under sections 51 to 53 were cut from 15 May 2026. And Vanashakti v. Union of India, 29 July 2026, holds that prior environmental clearance is mandatory and that regularisation after the event can only be narrow and time-bound.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2016 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 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 14 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.
SECTION I
Q.P. Code 312401, First Half 2016, the first paper on the scan
any four of seven, all carry equal marks · 100 Marks
1.Examine in depth the efficacy of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.[25]
Answer
For full marks, cover: "examine in depth" asks for a verdict built on evidence, so define what efficacy means for this Act before judging it. Test the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against its own objectives in five areas (the reach of its powers, pollution control through standards, control of location and projects, hazardous substances and accidents, and enforcement and institutions), using concrete outcomes and decided cases for each. Take account of the 2021 air quality commission law, the 2023 decriminalisation and the 2026 judgment on post facto clearances, and end with an overall assessment that separates what the Act made possible from what it actually achieved.
What efficacy means for this Act
A statute is efficacious if it achieves the purposes for which it was enacted. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 declared its purpose in its long title and preamble: the protection and improvement of the environment, and the implementation of the decisions of the Stockholm Conference of 1972, including the prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons added that it was meant to fill gaps left by medium-specific laws, control hazardous substances, and provide a lead authority capable of coordinating planning and emergency response.
Efficacy therefore has two dimensions: whether the Act gave the State the legal capacity to protect the environment, and whether that capacity has actually produced cleaner air and water, safer handling of hazardous substances and compliance by polluters. Examined in depth, the Act scores very differently on the two.
Area one: the reach of its powers (highly efficacious)
The Act's great success is legal capacity. Section 3(1) empowers the Central Government to take all measures it deems necessary to protect the environment, section 2(a) defines environment to include air, water, land and all living things, and section 1(2) applies it throughout India under Article 253.
Without any amendment to its core, that power has produced the national ambient air quality standards and industry emission standards in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986; the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006; the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019; eco-sensitive zones around protected areas; the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000; rules on plastic, electronic, battery, hazardous and solid waste; the Ecomark Rules, 2024; and the contaminated sites rules of 2025. No other Indian environmental statute has been so productive. On this measure the Act has more than fulfilled its purpose of providing a general law.
Area two: pollution control through standards (partly efficacious)
Standards under sections 3 and 6, made binding by the prohibition in section 7, are the Act's main tool against pollution. The existence of standards has allowed Boards to set consent conditions and courts to measure breaches. But outcomes have lagged. India's cities continue to record some of the world's worst air, many rivers remain grossly polluted from untreated sewage, and standards for many industries were revised slowly.
Evidence from Delhi's air. In the vehicular pollution proceedings, the Supreme Court's order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63, recorded that the Government's own White Paper attributed seventy per cent of Delhi's air pollution to vehicles and that an authority constituted in January 1998 had found none of the major measures implemented. The Court itself fixed deadlines, including removal of commercial vehicles more than fifteen years old and conversion of the public transport fleet to clean fuel. The authority had been constituted by order S.O. 93(E) of 29 January 1998 under the Act of 1986. In 2021 Parliament concluded that the Act's machinery was insufficient for regional air pollution: the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021, deemed in force from 13 April 2021, repealed the order constituting that authority, replaced it with a statutory commission and gave the new law overriding effect. The Act of 1986 made action possible; its own institutions could not deliver clean air.
Area three: control of location and projects (efficacious in design, weakened in practice)
Clause (v) of section 3(2), restricting areas where industries or processes may be carried on, is the source of the most important preventive regimes in Indian law: prior environmental clearance and coastal regulation. They have given communities hearings, forced disclosure and stopped or reshaped many projects.
Their efficacy has been undermined in three ways. Exemptions and amendments have multiplied, from building projects excused from public hearings to relaxed coastal setbacks. Projects were built without the mandatory prior clearance and then regularised. And the question of regularisation itself became unstable: the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 notification and the 2021 office memorandum in May 2025, recalled that judgment in November 2025, and finally decided in Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 761, on 29 July 2026, that section 3 permits only a narrowly tailored, time-bound regularisation in supervening public interest, upholding the 2017 notification but quashing the 2021 memorandum prospectively. A preventive regime whose core rule was litigated for years is only partly effective.
Area four: hazardous substances and accidents (framework present, prevention weak)
Sections 8 and 9 and the rules made under sections 6, 8 and 25 regulate hazardous chemicals, major accident hazards, emergency planning and hazardous waste. The framework is detailed, and since 1991 it has been supported by compulsory insurance and no-fault relief.
Evidence from Visakhapatnam. In In re Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in Visakhapatnam, 2020 SCC OnLine NGT 129, decided on 1 June 2020, styrene vapour escaped from a poorly maintained storage tank at a plastics plant near Visakhapatnam on 7 May 2020, killing residents and affecting thousands. The National Green Tribunal, acting on its own motion, found that the unit had been operating without the requisite environmental clearance, held the company strictly and absolutely liable, appropriated fifty crore rupees towards restoration and compensation, and directed action against officials who had allowed the unit to operate. Thirty-five years after the Act was passed in response to Bhopal, a hazardous chemical plant had run without clearance under the regimes the Act created. The rules existed; their enforcement before the accident did not.
Area five: enforcement and institutions (the weakest area)
Sanctions. For more than thirty-seven years, section 15 provided imprisonment of up to five years, but prosecutions were rare and convictions rarer. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 replaced imprisonment from 1 April 2024 with penalties imposed by adjudicating officers under sections 14A to 15C, credited to the Environmental Protection Fund under section 16, with imprisonment only for failure to pay under section 15F. Parliament thereby accepted that the old sanction had not worked; whether civil penalties will deter remains to be proved.
Institutions. The Act creates no inspectorate of its own. It relies on Boards constituted under the Water and Air Acts, delegation under section 23 and authorities under section 3(3), all dependent on the Central Government. Courts repeatedly had to direct the Government to use its powers, most famously by ordering authorities to be constituted a decade after the Act.
Evidence from Tuticorin. In Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575, reports of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute from 1998 to 2005 showed that a copper smelter at Tuticorin had emitted and discharged beyond the Board's standards, and the company had operated without renewal of its consents for a long period. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's closure order because the deficiencies had since been removed, but directed compensation of one hundred crore rupees for past pollution. Years of non-compliance had been corrected only through litigation, not through the regulatory system.
The overall assessment
| Area | What the Act made possible | What it achieved |
|---|---|---|
| Reach of powers | A general law over every medium, with a power to make any needed rule | Achieved fully |
| Standards | Binding ambient and emission standards | Legal benchmarks exist; air and water quality remain poor; a new statute was needed for regional air |
| Area | What the Act made possible | What it achieved |
|---|---|---|
| Location and projects | Prior clearance and coastal regulation | Strong procedures, diluted by exemptions and regularisation disputes |
| Hazardous substances | Detailed rules on storage, accidents and waste | Accidents still occur at plants operating unlawfully |
| Enforcement | Directions, investigation powers, sanctions | Sanctions rarely used, now decriminalised; institutions dependent and under-resourced |
Why the gap exists. The Act confers powers but not duties, depends on delegated legislation that can be relaxed, relies on under-resourced Boards, provides little public information by default, and until 2024 carried a sanction too cumbersome to use.
What would raise its efficacy. Duties to review standards and act on violations within fixed times; scrutiny of major notifications by Parliament; independent and adequately staffed regulators; routine public disclosure of consent conditions, monitoring data and inspection results; penalties set to exceed the gain from non-compliance, as section 15C(4)(e) already contemplates by requiring regard to undue gain; and closer integration with the National Green Tribunal's remedial powers.
Conclusion. Examined in depth, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been extraordinarily efficacious as a source of legal power and far less efficacious as an instrument of environmental outcomes. Section 3 has generated almost the whole of India's modern environmental regulation, from clearances and coastal zones to waste and eco-labels, but air and water quality remain poor, as the vehicular pollution order of 1998 and the need for the air quality commission law of 2021 show; the preventive clearance regime has been weakened by exemptions and regularisation, settled only in Vanashakti in 2026; hazardous plants have operated unlawfully until disaster, as in the Visakhapatnam leak examined by the Tribunal in 2020; and enforcement has depended on courts, as Sterlite illustrates, while the criminal sanction proved so ineffective that Parliament replaced it in 2023. The Act's efficacy now depends less on its text than on the capacity and independence of the institutions that apply it.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest are part of LL.M. Environment and Legal Order Semester 3.
You have read the paper as it was set and the first model answer in full. The remaining answers come with the bundle, along with every other solved paper for this semester.
See the semester for ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or just the solved papers: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, as does the syllabus and module one of every subject.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.