UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — The Vanashakti verdict is balanced and pragmatic

Q1. The judgment of the Supreme Court dated 29 July 2026 in Vanashakti v. Union of India, on ex post facto environmental clearance, was authored by which one of the following judges?

  • A. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
  • B. Chief Justice Surya Kant
  • C. Justice Vipul Pancholi
  • D. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Q2. In its 29 July 2026 verdict, how did the Supreme Court characterise the Environment Ministry's notification of 14 March 2017?

  • A. As valid, narrowly tailored and time-bound delegated legislation traceable to Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
  • B. As an administrative instruction contrary to the EIA Notification, 2006, liable to be quashed on that ground
  • C. As a continuing statutory scheme saved only prospectively, with all clearances issued under it set aside
  • D. As subordinate legislation which the Centre lacked competence to issue without prior parliamentary approval

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006: 1. The environmental clearance process comprises four stages — screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal. 2. Category 'A' projects require an EIA and a public hearing, and clearance is granted by the Union Environment Ministry. 3. Category 'B2' projects must prepare an EIA report but are exempted from public consultation. 4. Category 'B' projects are appraised by the State Expert Appraisal Committee and cleared by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

  1. The environmental clearance process comprises four stages — screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal.
  2. Category 'A' projects require an EIA and a public hearing, and clearance is granted by the Union Environment Ministry.
  3. Category 'B2' projects must prepare an EIA report but are exempted from public consultation.
  4. Category 'B' projects are appraised by the State Expert Appraisal Committee and cleared by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
  • A. 1 and 3
  • B. 3 only
  • C. 2 and 4
  • D. 3 and 4

Q4. Under the extant provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, prior environmental clearance is stipulated as necessary in how many distinct classes of cases?

  • A. Two
  • B. Three
  • C. Four
  • D. Five

Q5. Under the Environment Ministry's notification of 14 March 2017, projects admitted as violation cases were to be appraised in which one of the following ways?

  • A. As Category 'A' projects by the concerned sector Expert Appraisal Committee at the Central level, irrespective of their original category
  • B. As Category 'B1' projects by the State Expert Appraisal Committee of the State in which the project is located
  • C. By the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, with the Central Pollution Control Board assessing the ecological damage
  • D. By a joint committee of the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board constituted for each such case

Q6. Consider the following statements about the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum on environmental clearance for violation cases: 1. The 2017 notification offered a one-time opportunity of six months to units that were in violation as on the date of its issue. 2. Unlike the one-time 2017 window, the 2021 Office Memorandum was designed to operate as a continuing administrative mechanism for handling violation cases. 3. In its 29 July 2026 verdict the Supreme Court upheld the 2021 Office Memorandum as valid delegated legislation while quashing the 2017 notification. 4. Under the 2021 Office Memorandum, a violation could be taken up only on identification by the pollution control boards, and not on the project proponent's own reporting. Which of the above is/are NOT correct?

  1. The 2017 notification offered a one-time opportunity of six months to units that were in violation as on the date of its issue.
  2. Unlike the one-time 2017 window, the 2021 Office Memorandum was designed to operate as a continuing administrative mechanism for handling violation cases.
  3. In its 29 July 2026 verdict the Supreme Court upheld the 2021 Office Memorandum as valid delegated legislation while quashing the 2017 notification.
  4. Under the 2021 Office Memorandum, a violation could be taken up only on identification by the pollution control boards, and not on the project proponent's own reporting.
  • A. 1 and 2
  • B. 3 only
  • C. 3 and 4
  • D. 2, 3 and 4

Q7. With reference to the Supreme Court's judgment of 16 May 2025 in Vanashakti v. Union of India, consider the following: 1. It was delivered by a two-judge Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. 2. It held both the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum of the MoEFCC to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21. 3. It treated prior environmental clearance as the only legal route for setting up or modifying industrial and real estate projects. 4. It was subsequently recalled by a unanimous Bench of the Supreme Court in November 2025. Which of the above is/are correctly identified?

  1. It was delivered by a two-judge Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
  2. It held both the 2017 notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum of the MoEFCC to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
  3. It treated prior environmental clearance as the only legal route for setting up or modifying industrial and real estate projects.
  4. It was subsequently recalled by a unanimous Bench of the Supreme Court in November 2025.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3
  • C. 2, 3 and 4
  • D. 1, 3 and 4

Q8. Which one of the following correctly states the constitutional basis on which the Supreme Court proceeded in its 16 May 2025 ruling against post-facto environmental clearance?

  • A. It rested on Articles 14 and 21, treating the right to a pollution-free environment as part of the right to life
  • B. It rested on Article 48A, which the Court held to be directly enforceable by courts against the Union in all clearance matters
  • C. It rested on Article 51A(g), which the Court held imposes an absolute duty rendering every clearance granted after commencement void
  • D. It rested on Article 253 alone, which the Court held to be the exclusive source of the Centre's power in environmental matters