UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — HC to hear PIL plea on noise pollution after student’s death

Q1. Consider the following facts: I. A Division Bench of a High Court was hearing a case on pressure horns and modified silencers. During that hearing, it ordered a separate suo motu public interest litigation on noise pollution to be registered after a schoolchild died while a procession with loudspeakers was passing the school. II. The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 already provide for silence zones around educational institutions. Which of the following inferences can be drawn from the above facts?

  1. The court treated noise pollution as a matter of general public concern and not merely as the grievance of one affected family.
  2. The incident shows that the 2000 Rules contain no provision protecting areas around schools from noise.
  3. The High Court regarded the matter as lying outside the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal.
  4. Registering the proceedings did not depend on a petition being filed by the affected family.
  • A. 2, 3 and 4 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 1, 3 and 4 only
  • D. 1 and 4 only

Q2. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. A rise in ambient noise from 50 dB(A) to 60 dB(A) represents far more than a 20 per cent increase in sound intensity.
  2. On the decibel scale, each step of 10 dB corresponds to a tenfold multiplication of sound intensity.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q3. Consider the following assertion: Organisers of a religious procession cannot claim a constitutional right to play loudspeakers in breach of the ambient noise limits near a school. Which of the statements given below support/supports the above assertion?

  1. The freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion under Article 25 is expressly subject to public order, morality and health.
  2. The freedom under Article 25 is available to all persons and not only to citizens of India.
  3. Courts have treated the right to live in a pollution-free environment as part of the right to life under Article 21.
  • A. 2 and 3 only
  • B. 1 only
  • C. 1 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q4. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. A High Court may issue a writ directing a public authority to perform a statutory duty, such as enforcing the Noise Pollution Rules, even where no fundamental right is directly invoked.
  2. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs both for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q5. With reference to the writ jurisdiction of constitutional courts in India, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Article 226 opens with a non-obstante clause referring to Article 32, so a High Court's power to issue writs is not reduced because the Supreme Court has a similar power.
  2. The right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights is itself guaranteed as a fundamental right.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 2 only
  • C. Both 1 and 2
  • D. Neither 1 nor 2