Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of andlsquo;forestandrsquo; andmdash; that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of Indiaandrsquo;s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of Indiaandrsquo;s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify andlsquo;any desired useandrsquo; beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction: Read the following passage careful...

Join the Discussion on the App

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.

The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?

a)
The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nation's development.
b)
The Bill's more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.
c)
The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.
d)
Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: CLAT Mock Test - 13

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...

The passage says that the exclusion of some locations from the necessity of clearing forests could have detrimental effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. This is consistent with the assertion in option C, which implies that the exclusion of specific places might have adverse effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. The passage expresses worry over the exclusion of biodiversity hotspots and fragile ecosystems from the bill's changes to the bill, saying that this could have a negative impact on the environment.

Option A is untrue since the passage makes no clear mention of the need for the proposed revisions to strike a balance between environmental preservation and development requirements. The section criticizes the revisions and expresses worry about any potential harm they might do to environmental preservation.

Option B is erroneous since the passage makes no mention of the goal of administrative efficiency in the limited definition of forests and exclusion of certain areas. Instead, it draws attention to the possibility that these changes could significantly affect how forests and ecosystems are protected.

Because the paragraph does not address the potential advantages of allowing exemptions for construction projects in forests, Option D is erroneous. It primarily focuses on the modifications' detrimental effects on environmental protection and conservation.
Hence, option C is correct.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.Which of the following statements best summarizes the passages major point, according to the text?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.Which of the following is the realistic plan of action that can address the issues in the proposed amendment bill, according to the passage?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.Which of the following statements accurately summarizes the impact of the proposed amendment on forest conservation, as discussed in the passage?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.What is the central concern expressed in the passage regarding the Bills granting of "unrestricted powers" to the Union government?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.India is one of the few countries with elaborate provisions for the environment in the legal framework. The courts in India largely relied on Article 21 for applying the law to the decision making process on various perspectives and provisional duties related to the environment. Protection of the environment can give rise to many challenges in a developing country. Hence, administrative and legal strategies are extremely important to ensure environmental harmony. T Damodar Rao v Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabadwas a landmark case for High Courts in India to take up responsibility in specific and concrete decision making. Despite severe penalties, environmental laws in certain places seem erratic in their implementation and ineffective at many levels of administrative mechanisms.The courts have also laid down that protection and improvement of the environment is mandated for all institutions across the country and is a right as well. India being a developing nation with interests in growth and burgeoning developmental ideologies, the mandates of Courts are envisioned in a development-oriented manner, where the concept of Sustainable Development arises. A relatively new concept for India to focus on in terms of resource utilisation is reducing our collective carbon footprint and pollution levels. Sustainable development law is found at the intersection of three primary fields of law: international economic law, international environmental law and international social law. It refers to an emerging substantive body of legal instruments, norms and treaties, supported by distinctive procedural elements. This is incorporated on the justification that future generations may benefit from policies and laws that advocate environmental protection as well as developmental goals. This has recently been recognised by the Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India case.A notable action that could be taken is making the system more accommodating and approachable- Making it easier to read and understand the law provisions and statutes regarding Environmental Law for the general population and better mechanisms for efficiency as well as transparency within (courts) and outside (public spaces) the systems of administrative, legislature and judiciary can go a long way. Law is generally regarded as a Utopian system of action. Making it a more approachable and public-friendly system would allow it to work on an easier transition for the public. Systems such as Public Interest Litigations are focused on allowing people to issue and procure information from within the legal system on the matter of interest at hand. The Law is trying to focus on easier access for appeals and better capabilities of integrating the public interest within judgements and cases.Q.Akshat lives in house in a very packed and congested colony. Recently 5-6 families with adjoining houses in the colony have reconstructed their houses to start a new company to manufacture eco friendly home utilities. They want to contribute in creating better environment. As there manufacturing unit is purifying everything being created in the process it throws out lot of chemical waste on road which is collected by government vehicle after a day. Akshat believes this is pollution and sues them. Based on the principles and information set out in the given passage

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct 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 Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which the new Bill aims to amend, admittedly and justifiably adopted a rather protectionist stance which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain. While current development needs and priorities must be recognized, this Bill deviates in a significant manner from the spirit of the original law. Three points that emerge from the Bill have caused considerable consternation among environmental experts: the narrowed definition of forests under its scope; the exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas; and the granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier. These need to be better explained.The Bill will significantly restrict the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996 which had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ — that is, areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover, encompassing almost 2,00,000 square kilometres. While these forests include fruit orchards and plantations, they also encompass forests of exceptional quality and conservation value. An instance is a category of Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have so far not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. For the same reason, large swathes of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant, apart from being critical to the water security of this region, may be affected by the amendment. Second, the Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems as it removes the need for forest clearances for security related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. These include globally recognized biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows. Third, the Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism facilities. Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human wellbeing. What is worrying is that the Bill also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the original or amended Act. Such provisions raise legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.Q.According to the passage, which of the following conclusions is possible?a)The proposed changes to the Forest Conservation Act are required to strike a balance between environmental preservation and the needs of the nations development.b)The Bills more restrictive definition of forests and exclusion of some regions are intended to streamline administrative procedures and lower administrative barriers.c)The removal of some regions from the requirement of clearing forests could have a harmful effect on ecosystems and biodiversity.d)Allowing limited exceptions for forest construction projects could promote ethical ecotourism and environmental education without doing much harm.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam