Study this in the app →

English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

Biodiversity law, the National Green Tribunal and the principles of environmental law

മലയാളത്തിൽ വിശദീകരണം

Environmental laws and bodies · Part 3 / 3 · Fact-checked on · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, its three tiers, access rules, benefit sharing and the 2023 amendment; the National Green Tribunal, its benches and seven Acts; Article 21 and public interest litigation; absolute liability, polluter pays, the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine; the Central Zoo Authority and Animal Welfare Board; and which body sits under which law.

Each idea is explained first in Malayalam (മലയാളം), ending with the English and Hindi exam terms, followed by the same point in exam English. UPSC Prelims is in English or Hindi, so understand it in Malayalam and revise it in English.

ഈ അവസാന ഭാഗത്ത് മൂന്ന് കാര്യങ്ങൾ. ഒന്ന്: നമ്മുടെ ചെടികൾ, ജന്തുക്കൾ, സൂക്ഷ്മജീവികൾ, അവയെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള അറിവ് എന്നിവ ആര്, ഏത് വ്യവസ്ഥയിൽ എടുക്കാം എന്ന നിയമം. രണ്ട്: പരിസ്ഥിതി തർക്കങ്ങൾ കേൾക്കുന്ന പ്രത്യേക വേദി, ദേശീയ ഹരിത ട്രൈബ്യൂണൽ. മൂന്ന്: കോടതി രൂപപ്പെടുത്തിയ തത്വങ്ങൾ: സമ്പൂർണ ബാധ്യത, മലിനീകരിക്കുന്നവർ നൽകണമെന്ന തത്വം, മുൻകരുതൽ തത്വം, പൊതു ട്രസ്റ്റ് സിദ്ധാന്തം. ഇവ വെവ്വേറെ നിയമങ്ങളെ ഒരേ ചരടിൽ കോർക്കുന്ന കെട്ടുകൾ പോലെയാണ്. (→ English: National Green Tribunal; absolute liability; polluter pays principle; precautionary principle; public trust doctrine · हिन्दी: राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण; पूर्ण दायित्व; प्रदूषक भुगतान सिद्धांत; एहतियाती सिद्धांत; लोक न्यास सिद्धांत)

In exam EnglishThis last part of the chapter takes up three things the first two parts left out. The first is the law on living resources: the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which decides who may take India's plants, animals and microbes, and the knowledge tied to them, and on what terms. The second is the National Green Tribunal, the specialised court that has heard most environmental disputes since 2010. The third is the set of principles the Supreme Court built while reading a healthy environment into the right to life: absolute liability, the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine. The part closes with a few smaller bodies and a table of every law in the chapter beside the body that runs it.

കരുതുക, മുത്തശ്ശിയുടെ വീട്ടിൽ തലമുറകളായി ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന മഞ്ഞൾ പ്രയോഗത്തിന് വിദേശത്ത് ആരോ പേറ്റന്റ് എടുത്തു. അതാണ് ജൈവ കൊള്ള. ഇത് തടയാൻ 2002-ലെ നിയമം മൂന്ന് തട്ടുകൾ ഉണ്ടാക്കി: മുകളിൽ ചെന്നൈയിൽ ദേശീയ ജൈവവൈവിധ്യ അതോറിറ്റി, നടുവിൽ സംസ്ഥാന ബോർഡ്, താഴെ ഓരോ പഞ്ചായത്തിലും നഗരസഭയിലും ജൈവവൈവിധ്യ പരിപാലന സമിതി. (→ English: Biological Diversity Act, 2002; National Biodiversity Authority; State Biodiversity Board; Biodiversity Management Committee · हिन्दी: जैव विविधता अधिनियम, 2002; राष्ट्रीय जैव विविधता प्राधिकरण; राज्य जैव विविधता बोर्ड; जैव विविधता प्रबंधन समिति)

In exam EnglishIndia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and ratified it in 1994. The Convention accepts that each country has sovereign rights over its own biological resources, and it expects the gains from using them to be shared fairly with those who conserved them. Patents had also been granted abroad on uses of turmeric and neem long known in Indian homes. This taking of resources or knowledge without consent is often called bio-piracy. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was Parliament's answer. It builds a three-tier structure. At the national level is the National Biodiversity Authority, set up in 2003 and based at Chennai. Each state has a State Biodiversity Board. At the bottom, every local body, rural or urban, is to form a Biodiversity Management Committee.

നിയമം ചോദിക്കുന്നയാളിനെ ആശ്രയിച്ച് മാറും, വീട്ടുവാതിലിലെ കാവൽക്കാരനെപ്പോലെ. വിദേശികൾ, പ്രവാസി ഇന്ത്യക്കാർ, വിദേശ നിയന്ത്രിത കമ്പനികൾ മുൻകൂട്ടി ദേശീയ അതോറിറ്റിയുടെ അനുമതി വാങ്ങണം; പേറ്റന്റ് നേടാനും കൂടി. നമ്മുടെ പൗരന്മാരും കമ്പനികളും സംസ്ഥാന ബോർഡിനെ മുൻകൂട്ടി അറിയിച്ചാൽ മതി. നാട്ടിലെ കർഷകർക്കും വൈദ്യന്മാർക്കും ഹക്കീമുമാർക്കും ഈ നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങളില്ല. (→ English: prior approval of the NBA; prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board; vaids and hakims · हिन्दी: NBA का पूर्व अनुमोदन; राज्य जैव विविधता बोर्ड को पूर्व सूचना; वैद्य और हकीम)

In exam EnglishThe core of the Act is a set of permission rules, and which rule applies depends on who is asking. A foreign national, a non-resident Indian or a foreign-controlled company needs the prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority before it obtains any biological resource occurring in India, or knowledge associated with it, for research or commercial use. NBA approval is also required before a patent or other intellectual property right is secured on an invention based on Indian material. Indian citizens and Indian companies face a lighter test: they give prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board before commercial use. Local people and communities of the area, including growers and cultivators, and vaids and hakims who practise traditional medicine, are kept outside these controls. Suppose a European cosmetics firm wants a cream made from a Western Ghats herb: it must go to the NBA first and accept benefit-sharing terms.

അനുമതി നൽകുമ്പോൾ തന്നെ നേട്ടം എങ്ങനെ പങ്കിടണം എന്ന് എഴുതും, അതാണ് പ്രാപ്യതയും നേട്ടം പങ്കിടലും: പണം, റോയൽറ്റി, സംയുക്ത ഗവേഷണം, നാട്ടുകാർക്ക് സഹായം. നാട്ടിലെ സമിതി ജനകീയ ജൈവവൈവിധ്യ രജിസ്റ്റർ എഴുതും, വീടിന്റെ ആധാരം പോലെ: ഈ വിത്ത്, ഈ മരുന്ന് ഞങ്ങളുടെ നാടിന്റേതാണ് എന്ന തെളിവ്. പ്രത്യേക സ്ഥലങ്ങളെ പൈതൃക സ്ഥലങ്ങളായി പ്രഖ്യാപിക്കാം; ആദ്യത്തേത് കർണാടകയിലെ നല്ലൂർ പുളിത്തോട്ടം. (→ English: access and benefit sharing; National Biodiversity Fund; People's Biodiversity Register; biodiversity heritage site · हिन्दी: पहुँच और लाभ साझेदारी; राष्ट्रीय जैव विविधता निधि; लोक जैव विविधता रजिस्टर; जैव विविधता विरासत स्थल)

In exam EnglishBenefit sharing is how the Act turns permission into fairness. When the NBA approves a request it fixes terms of access and benefit sharing, which may be money, a share of royalties, joint research, transfer of technology or support for the local people who looked after the resource. Payments go to the National Biodiversity Fund and, where the holders of the resource or knowledge can be identified, are passed on to them. In each village or town the biodiversity management committee documents local plants, animals, crop varieties and the knowledge around them in a People's Biodiversity Register. This record matters as evidence: it shows that a remedy or a seed belonged to a community before an outsider claimed it. Separately, a state government may, after consulting local bodies, notify places of special biodiversity value as biodiversity heritage sites; the first, in 2007, was the Nallur Tamarind Grove in Karnataka.

2023-ലെ ഭേദഗതി നിയമങ്ങൾ എളുപ്പമാക്കി. രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്ത ആയുഷ് ഡോക്ടർമാരും ഗ്രന്ഥങ്ങളിൽ എഴുതിയ പാരമ്പര്യ അറിവ് ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നവരും സംസ്ഥാന ബോർഡിനെ മുൻകൂട്ടി അറിയിക്കേണ്ട. പേറ്റന്റിന് അനുമതി അപേക്ഷയ്ക്ക് മുൻപല്ല, പേറ്റന്റ് നൽകുന്നതിന് മുൻപ്. ജയിൽശിക്ഷ മാറി പിഴ വന്നു. മൂന്ന് തട്ടുള്ള ഘടന മാറിയിട്ടില്ല. (→ English: Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023; codified traditional knowledge; decriminalisation · हिन्दी: जैव विविधता (संशोधन) अधिनियम, 2023; संहिताबद्ध पारंपरिक ज्ञान; अपराधमुक्ति)

In exam EnglishThe Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 shifted the balance of the law towards ease of use. It aimed to ease compliance and to encourage the cultivation of medicinal plants. Registered AYUSH practitioners and users of codified traditional knowledge, meaning knowledge set down in classical texts, were freed from giving prior intimation to state boards. Approval for intellectual property rights is now needed before the right is actually granted, not before the application is filed. Offences, which earlier could lead to imprisonment, were decriminalised and replaced by monetary penalties. The three-tier structure of authority, boards and committees was kept unchanged.

കരുതുക, ഒരു ഫാക്ടറി പുഴവെള്ളം മലിനമാക്കുന്നു എന്ന് കേസ്; സാധാരണ കോടതിയിൽ വർഷങ്ങൾ പോകും, ജഡ്ജിക്ക് രസതന്ത്രം അറിയണമെന്നില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ട് 2010-ൽ ദേശീയ ഹരിത ട്രൈബ്യൂണൽ വന്നു. പ്രധാന ബെഞ്ച് ഡൽഹിയിൽ, മേഖലാ ബെഞ്ചുകൾ ഭോപ്പാൽ, പൂനെ, കൊൽക്കത്ത, ചെന്നൈ എന്നിവിടങ്ങളിൽ. ജഡ്ജിമാർക്കൊപ്പം പരിസ്ഥിതി വിദഗ്ധരും ഇരിക്കും, ഡോക്ടർക്കൊപ്പം ലാബ് വിദഗ്ധൻ ഉള്ളതുപോലെ. (→ English: National Green Tribunal; principal bench; zonal benches; judicial and expert members · हिन्दी: राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण; प्रधान पीठ; क्षेत्रीय पीठें; न्यायिक और विशेषज्ञ सदस्य)

In exam EnglishEnvironmental cases once lingered for years in ordinary courts, and judges often lacked the scientific support such disputes need. The Supreme Court had more than once suggested environment courts with expert members, and earlier laws of 1995 and 1997 made little difference in practice. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 created a single specialised body, and the National Green Tribunal was set up on 18 October 2010. Its principal bench sits in New Delhi, with zonal benches at Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai. The chairperson must have been a judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court. Beside the judicial members sit expert members with scientific or administrative experience of the environment, between ten and twenty of each kind.

ട്രൈബ്യൂണൽ ഏഴ് നിയമങ്ങൾക്ക് കീഴിലെ കേസുകൾ മാത്രം കേൾക്കും: വെള്ളം, ജല സെസ്, വന സംരക്ഷണം, വായു, പരിസ്ഥിതി സംരക്ഷണം, പൊതു ബാധ്യതാ ഇൻഷുറൻസ്, ജൈവവൈവിധ്യം. വന്യജീവി, ഇന്ത്യൻ വന, വനാവകാശ നിയമങ്ങൾ ഈ പട്ടികയിൽ ഇല്ല. ആറ് മാസത്തിനകം അപേക്ഷ നൽകണം. വിധിയിൽ സുസ്ഥിര വികസനം, മുൻകരുതൽ, മലിനീകരിക്കുന്നവർ നൽകൽ എന്നിവ പാലിക്കണം. അപ്പീൽ 90 ദിവസത്തിനകം സുപ്രീം കോടതിയിലേക്ക്. സ്വയം കേസെടുക്കാനും കഴിയും. (→ English: Schedule I; original and appellate jurisdiction; sustainable development; suo motu · हिन्दी: अनुसूची I; मूल और अपीली अधिकारिता; सतत विकास; स्वतः संज्ञान)

In exam EnglishThe tribunal's reach is fixed by seven Acts listed in Schedule I of the 2010 Act: the Water Act, 1974, the Water Cess Act, 1977, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Air Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. It hears civil cases raising a substantial question relating to the environment under these laws, and appeals against orders made under them, and can order compensation and restoration. Note what is missing: the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006. An application must normally be filed within six months of the cause arising. The tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but follows natural justice, and Section 20 obliges it to apply sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. Its orders can be appealed in the Supreme Court within 90 days. In 2021 the Supreme Court held that the tribunal may also act on its own (suo motu).

ഭരണഘടനയിൽ 'ശുദ്ധവായുവിനുള്ള അവകാശം' എന്ന് എവിടെയും എഴുതിയിട്ടില്ല. കോടതി 21-ാം അനുച്ഛേദത്തിലെ ജീവിക്കാനുള്ള അവകാശം വായിച്ച്, ശുദ്ധജലവും വായുവും ഇല്ലാതെ എന്ത് ജീവിതം എന്ന് അർത്ഥം നൽകി. ഡൂൺ താഴ്‌വരയിലെ ഖനനത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള ഒരു കത്തിന്മേൽ കോടതി ഖനികൾ അടപ്പിച്ചു. പൊതുതാൽപര്യ ഹർജി കാരണം, എനിക്ക് നേരിട്ട് നഷ്ടമില്ലെങ്കിലും നാട്ടിലെ പുഴയ്ക്കായി ആർക്കും കോടതിയിൽ പോകാം. (→ English: Article 21; right to a pollution-free environment; public interest litigation · हिन्दी: अनुच्छेद 21; प्रदूषण-मुक्त पर्यावरण का अधिकार; जनहित याचिका)

In exam EnglishNone of the court-made principles is written into the Constitution in so many words. Judges drew them out of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, read together with the duty of the State in Article 48A and the duty of citizens in Article 51A(g). In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), the Supreme Court acted on a letter about limestone quarrying in the Doon valley and ordered many quarries closed. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) it stated directly that the right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air. public interest litigation made this growth possible: because the Court relaxed the rule on who may approach it, a citizen or group could raise damage to a river or a forest that hurt many people without showing a personal injury.

കരുതുക, ഗ്രാമത്തിനരികെ വിഷവാതകം ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന ഫാക്ടറി ഉണ്ട്; അപകടത്തിൽ ആളുകൾക്ക് പരിക്കേറ്റു. 'ഞങ്ങൾ ശ്രദ്ധിച്ചിരുന്നു, ഇത് ദൈവത്തിന്റെ പ്രവൃത്തി' എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് ഫാക്ടറിക്ക് രക്ഷപ്പെടാനാവില്ല. ഇതാണ് സമ്പൂർണ ബാധ്യത: ഒരു ഒഴികഴിവും നടക്കില്ല. പഴയ ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് നിയമത്തിൽ ഒഴികഴിവുകൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. വലിയ കമ്പനി കൂടുതൽ നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകണം. പിന്നീട് 1991-ലെ ഇൻഷുറൻസ് നിയമം വന്നു: തെറ്റ് തെളിയിക്കാതെ തന്നെ ഇരകൾക്ക് ഉടൻ സഹായം. (→ English: absolute liability; strict liability; Oleum gas leak case; Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 · हिन्दी: पूर्ण दायित्व; कठोर दायित्व; ओलियम गैस रिसाव मामला; लोक दायित्व बीमा अधिनियम, 1991)

In exam EnglishThe first principle was born of disaster. A year after the Bhopal gas leak of December 1984, oleum gas escaped from a Shriram Foods and Fertiliser unit in Delhi in December 1985. In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Oleum gas leak case, the Supreme Court laid down absolute liability: an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute duty to the community, and if an accident in that activity harms anyone, it must pay. The older English rule of strict liability from Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) allowed defences such as an act of God, the act of a stranger or the victim's own default; absolute liability allows none. The Court also said compensation should match the size and capacity of the enterprise, so that it deters. Parliament followed with the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, under which those handling hazardous substances must take insurance and pay immediate relief to victims without anyone having to prove fault.

വീട്ടിൽ കുട്ടി ചുമരിൽ ചായം തേച്ചാൽ, കറ മായ്ക്കുന്ന ചെലവും അവന്റേതുതന്നെ, അതാണ് മലിനീകരിക്കുന്നവർ നൽകണമെന്ന തത്വം: ഇരകൾക്ക് നഷ്ടപരിഹാരവും പരിസ്ഥിതി നന്നാക്കുന്ന ചെലവും. മുൻകരുതൽ തത്വം എന്നാൽ: അപകടം വലുതാണെങ്കിൽ പൂർണ തെളിവിനായി കാത്തിരിക്കരുത്; 'എന്റെ മലിനജലം സുരക്ഷിതം' എന്ന് ഫാക്ടറി തന്നെ തെളിയിക്കണം, നാട്ടുകാരല്ല. ഇവ 1996-ൽ രാജസ്ഥാൻ, തമിഴ്നാട് കേസുകളിൽ വന്നു. (→ English: polluter pays principle; precautionary principle; burden of proof; Vellore case · हिन्दी: प्रदूषक भुगतान सिद्धांत; एहतियाती सिद्धांत; सबूत का भार; वेल्लोर मामला)

In exam EnglishTwo more principles followed in 1996. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, chemical units making H-acid at Bichhri village in Rajasthan had poisoned the soil and wells around them; the Court applied the polluter pays principle, holding that the polluter must bear not only compensation for the victims but also the full cost of repairing the environment. Later that year, in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, about tanneries fouling the Palar river in Tamil Nadu, the Court declared polluter pays and the precautionary principle to be part of the law of the land. The precautionary principle has three parts: the State must foresee and prevent environmental harm; where the threat is serious or irreversible, lack of full scientific certainty is no reason to delay; and the burden of proving that an activity is harmless lies on the one who wants to undertake it.

നാട്ടിലെ കുളം നാട്ടുകാരുടേതാണ്; പ്രസിഡന്റിന് അത് കാക്കാം, പക്ഷേ ബന്ധുവിന് വിൽക്കാനാവില്ല. അതാണ് പൊതു ട്രസ്റ്റ് സിദ്ധാന്തം: പുഴകൾ, കടൽത്തീരങ്ങൾ, കാടുകൾ, വായു ജനങ്ങളുടേത്; സർക്കാർ സൂക്ഷിപ്പുകാരൻ മാത്രം. ബിയാസ് തീരത്തെ മോട്ടൽ പാട്ടം റദ്ദായി. പേരക്കുട്ടികൾക്കും ഈ സമ്പത്ത് ബാക്കി വേണം; ഇത് സുസ്ഥിര വികസനം എന്ന ആശയത്തോട് ചേർന്നതാണ്. (→ English: public trust doctrine; intergenerational equity; sustainable development · हिन्दी: लोक न्यास सिद्धांत; अंतर-पीढ़ीगत समता; सतत विकास)

In exam EnglishThe public trust doctrine entered Indian law in M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997). A company linked to Kamal Nath's family had obtained a lease of forest land on the bank of the Beas near Manali for a motel and had altered the river's flow. The Court ruled that rivers, the seashore, forests and the air are not the government's to give away: it keeps them in trust so that everyone can use them, and it may not pass them to a private owner to earn a profit. The lease was cancelled. A related idea is intergenerational equity: the present generation is a trustee of the environment for those not yet born, so today's development must not use up what future generations will need. Together with sustainable development, these ideas let courts weigh industry against ecology rather than pick one side outright.
Principles of environmental law built by the Supreme Court
PrincipleCase and yearWhat it means
Pollution-free water and air in Article 21Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)The right to life includes a healthy environment
Absolute liabilityM. C. Mehta v. Union of India, Oleum gas (1987)A hazardous enterprise pays for harm with no defence
Polluter paysIndian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996)Polluter bears compensation and the cost of restoring the environment
Precautionary principleVellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (1996)Act before certainty; the burden of proof is on the developer
Public trust doctrineM. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)The State holds natural resources as trustee for the public

ചെറിയ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങൾ രണ്ട്: മൃഗശാലകൾക്ക് അംഗീകാരം നൽകുന്ന കേന്ദ്ര മൃഗശാലാ അതോറിറ്റി (1992), മൃഗക്ഷേമത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് ഉപദേശിക്കുന്ന ബോർഡ് (1962). മുഴുവൻ അധ്യായവും ഒരു വീട് പോലെ: ഭരണഘടന അടിത്തറ, നിയമങ്ങൾ ചുമരുകൾ, കോടതി തത്വങ്ങൾ വിള്ളൽ അടയ്ക്കുന്ന സിമന്റ്, ആ സിമന്റ് നിർബന്ധമായും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന മേസ്തിരി ട്രൈബ്യൂണൽ. വനാവകാശ നിയമം മാത്രം ആദിവാസി കാര്യ മന്ത്രാലയത്തിന്റേത്. (→ English: Central Zoo Authority; Animal Welfare Board of India; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change · हिन्दी: केंद्रीय चिड़ियाघर प्राधिकरण; भारतीय जीव-जंतु कल्याण बोर्ड; पर्यावरण, वन और जलवायु परिवर्तन मंत्रालय)

In exam EnglishTwo smaller bodies also turn up in Prelims. The Central Zoo Authority, set up in 1992 under a section added to the Wild Life (Protection) Act in 1991, recognises zoos and lays down standards for them. The Animal Welfare Board of India, established in 1962 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, is a statutory advisory body on animal welfare. Over all of these stands the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, nodal for nearly every law in the chapter; the Forest Rights Act is the clear exception, belonging to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Seen whole, the chapter has one pattern: the Constitution gives the duty and the power, Parliament wrote sector laws with their own regulators, and the courts built principles that the NGT Act now makes binding.
Which body works under which law
LawMain body or authorityPoint to remember
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960Animal Welfare Board of India (1962)Statutory advisory body
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972National Board for Wildlife; NTCA; Central Zoo Authority (1992)Not in the NGT's Schedule I
Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981Central and State Pollution Control BoardsBoards created by the Water Act
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980Central government on advice of the Forest Advisory CommitteePrior central approval for diversion
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986Central government (MoEFCC)Umbrella Act; EIA and CRZ notifications
Biological Diversity Act, 2002NBA (Chennai), State Biodiversity Boards, BMCsBMCs keep People's Biodiversity Registers
Forest Rights Act, 2006Gram Sabha; District Level Committee; Ministry of Tribal AffairsNot under MoEFCC
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010National Green Tribunal (New Delhi and four zonal benches)Seven Acts in Schedule I; appeal to the Supreme Court in 90 days
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016National and State Compensatory Afforestation FundsPublic accounts; 90:10 sharing

Exam traps

Recap

Practice questions

Q1. Which one of the following Acts is NOT listed in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?

  1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977
  2. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
  3. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
  4. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Show answer

Answer: C. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is outside the tribunal's list. The Water Cess Act, 1977, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 are all among the seven Acts in Schedule I, so those three options are wrong.

Q2. Consider the following statements about the Biological Diversity Act, 2002:
1. The National Biodiversity Authority is located at Chennai.
2. An Indian company must obtain the prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority before using a biological resource commercially.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: an Indian company only gives prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board; NBA approval is required of foreigners, non-resident Indians and foreign-controlled companies. So options 2 and 3 fail because they include statement 2, and option 4 fails because statement 1 is true.

Q3. Match List I (case) with List II (principle or holding):
List I
A. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
B. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)
C. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
D. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
List II
1. Public trust doctrine
2. Right to pollution-free water and air under Article 21
3. Absolute liability
4. Precautionary principle as part of the law of the land
Select the correct answer using the code given below:

  1. A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2
  2. A-1, B-3, C-4, D-2
  3. A-3, B-1, C-2, D-4
  4. A-4, B-1, C-3, D-2
Show answer

Answer: A. A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2

The Oleum gas case (1987) gave absolute liability, Kamal Nath (1997) the public trust doctrine, Vellore (1996) the precautionary principle as law of the land, and Subhash Kumar (1991) the right to pollution-free water and air. Option 2 swaps Oleum gas and Kamal Nath; option 3 swaps Vellore and Subhash Kumar; option 4 swaps Oleum gas and Vellore.

Q4. Under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the People's Biodiversity Register is prepared by:

  1. The National Biodiversity Authority
  2. The State Biodiversity Board
  3. The Biodiversity Management Committee of the local body
  4. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Show answer

Answer: C. The Biodiversity Management Committee of the local body

The register is kept at the local level by the Biodiversity Management Committee. The NBA approves access by foreigners and fixes benefit sharing, the State Board receives prior intimation from Indians, and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs administers the Forest Rights Act, not this Act.

Q5. Consider the following statements about the National Green Tribunal:
1. An appeal against its order lies to the Supreme Court within 90 days.
2. Its hearings must follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 step by step.
3. It is required by law to apply the precautionary principle.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 1 and 3 only
  3. 2 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

Statements 1 and 3 are correct (Sections 22 and 20). Statement 2 is wrong: Section 19 frees the tribunal from the Code of Civil Procedure and asks it to follow natural justice. Every option containing statement 2 (1, 3 and 4) is therefore wrong.

Q6. The rule of absolute liability laid down by the Supreme Court differs from the rule of strict liability mainly because it:

  1. applies only to government undertakings
  2. does not let a hazardous enterprise escape paying even when the harm came from a natural calamity or from someone else's act
  3. requires the victim to prove negligence
  4. limits compensation to a fixed amount set by Parliament
Show answer

Answer: B. does not let a hazardous enterprise escape paying even when the harm came from a natural calamity or from someone else's act

Absolute liability, from the Oleum gas case (1987), removes the exceptions that strict liability allowed. It is not limited to government undertakings; it does not ask the victim to prove negligence; and it links compensation to the size and capacity of the enterprise rather than capping it.

Q7. With reference to the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023, consider the following statements:
1. It replaced imprisonment for offences with monetary penalties.
2. It exempted registered AYUSH practitioners from giving prior intimation to State Biodiversity Boards.
3. It abolished the Biodiversity Management Committees.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 2 and 3 only
  3. 1 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: A. 1 and 2 only

Statements 1 and 2 describe the amendment correctly. Statement 3 is wrong: the three-tier structure of NBA, State Boards and Biodiversity Management Committees was kept. Options 2, 3 and 4 all include statement 3 and are therefore wrong.

Q8. The Animal Welfare Board of India was established under which of the following laws?

  1. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
  2. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
  3. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
  4. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Show answer

Answer: A. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

The Board was set up in 1962 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Wild Life Act created bodies such as the National Board for Wildlife and the Central Zoo Authority, the EPA is the umbrella pollution law, and the Biological Diversity Act created the NBA, State Boards and BMCs; none of them created this Board.

← Part 2All partsQuick recap →

Study this in the Upscore app to keep notes, save it for revision, track your practice scores and follow a plan to the exam date. It's free.

Study this in the app →

Sources