Question Description
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the Central Vista case last month. By a majority of 2 : 1, the Supreme Court upheld the project in its entirety. The majority judgement reveals blind spots in the reasoning and several instances of blinders being put on. In the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances, the judgement found the project environmentally sound and upheld the clearances. The court was satisfied with the mitigation measures identified by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the project proponent. It added that so long as the trees are protected and the pollution levels are controlled by installing permanent smog towers, the 'environment is not a hurdle for development'.Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006), talks about the disclosure of the information in Form 1/Form 1-A in the application for clearance. The information disclosed must be honest and complete to assess the real environmental impact. When this information is false or misrepresented, the basis of the exercise is compromised. This is why the EIA Notification mandates revocation of a clearance granted on the basis of false and misrepresented information. Fundamental to the principle of the 'Environmental Rule of Law' is the principle of 'non-regression' that requires that the state does not allow further environmental deterioration unless 'strong justifications for a retrogressive measure are provided'. In the context of International environmental law, 'the principle of non-regression prohibits any recession of environmental law or existing levels of environmental protection and comprises its protective norms in the category of non-revocable and intangible legal rules, in the common interest of humanity.'The court observed that in matters of planning and development, the government has the sole prerogative regarding the nature, expanse, and timeline of development work. The environment and development are not sworn enemies. The environment cannot be a hurdle for development and a balance between the two is required by implementing mitigation measures. The objective of environmental law is not pollution mitigation alone. This is urgent, but only one part of the agenda. Environmental issues cannot be addressed by an approach that allows polluting activities and then suggests minimal mitigation measures to address unmeasured environmental consequences. The law and the state of the environment demand more ambition from the court and the decision makers in the country.Q. As per your reading, what is the main aim of the author of the passage?a)To criticise the SC judgement in the Central Vista projectb)To highlight the blindspot of the Supreme Court in cases related to environmental lawc)Both A and Bd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.