UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — HC refuses to review order on micro, nano plastics warning
Q1. A regulator argues that no consumer-facing measure should be imposed on a food contaminant until studies conclusively establish its harm to humans. With reference to the precautionary principle as it has developed in Indian law, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- Uncertainty in scientific evidence is not by itself a reason to withhold a protective measure where serious harm is plausible.
- The principle entered Indian law through a parliamentary enactment on environmental protection rather than through judicial decisions.
- The principle is triggered by threats of serious or irreversible harm, not by every conceivable risk.
- A. 1, 2 and 3
- B. 2 and 3 only
- C. 1 and 2 only
- D. 1 and 3 only
Q2. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
- The Madras High Court kept its micro/nano-plastics warning requirement in place even though FSSAI contended that research on harm to humans was inconclusive.
- Under the precautionary principle as adopted in Indian law, a party alleging harm from a product must first establish that harm through conclusive scientific evidence.
- 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 statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
- The Madras High Court's direction on packaged drinking water, sugar and salt requires a warning label instead of prohibiting their sale.
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 recognises a consumer's right to be protected against the marketing of goods that are hazardous to life and property.
- 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
Q4. Consider the following assertion: The Madras High Court's micro/nano-plastics labelling direction illustrates the tension between judicial directions and the domain of an expert statutory regulator. Which of the statements given below support/supports the above assertion?
- FSSAI, the statutory body tasked with framing science-based food standards, opposed the labelling requirement before the court.
- The direction applies to drinking water, sugar and salt only when they are sold in plastic bottles or packets.
- The direction prescribes the wording and visual form of a warning on packaged food, a matter ordinarily handled by food-labelling regulation.
- A. 1 and 3 only
- B. 1 only
- C. 2 and 3 only
- D. 1, 2 and 3
Q5. Consider the following facts: (i) a High Court directed that drinking water, sugar and salt sold in plastic bottles or packets carry a bold red warning that they 'may contain' micro/nano plastics; (ii) the court stated that its order does not find the products unsafe; (iii) the food regulator argued that the evidence was inconclusive and that the warning might cause public panic; (iv) the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the direction. Which of the following inferences can be drawn from the above?
- The Supreme Court has held on the merits that micro/nano-plastics in these products harm human health.
- The court's direction does not depend on first settling the scientific dispute over whether harm is proven.
- Consumers will necessarily stop buying these products once the warning is displayed.
- The same products sold in non-plastic packaging fall outside the direction as framed.
- A. 2, 3 and 4 only
- B. 1 and 2 only
- C. 2 and 4 only
- D. 1, 3 and 4 only