The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 introduced the concept of environmental protection in an explicit manner into the Constitution through introduction of Article 48-A and Article 51-A (g). In many judgments, the Supreme Court ruled that both the state and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources.
The recent judgment obliquely makes way for an enforceable right, and a potential obligation on the state unless the same is overturned by an Act of Parliament. India is signatory of various international environmental conservation treaties under which India has the binding commitment to reduce carbon emission. During the COP 21. India signed Paris Agreement along with 196 countries, under which universally binding agreement was made to limit greenhouse gas emission to levels that would prevent global temperatures from increasing to more than 1.5 degree Celsius before the industrial revolution. India has committed to generating 50renewable resources and will generate 500 GW of energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030, reducing the carbon emission by 1 billion ton. Additionally, India has committed to achieve net zero carbon emission target by 2070. Supreme Court’s March 21, 2024 verdict builds on the bulwark of jurisprudence in place since 1986, and, through various other judgments, the Supreme Court has recognised the right to clean environment along with right to clean air, water and soil free from pollution which is absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of life.
Any disturbance with these basic elements of environment would amount to violation of Article 21. It also establishes duty of the state to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Although right to clean environment has existed, by recognizing the right against climate change it shall compel the states to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development. (Extracted, with edits and revision, from ”Supreme Court of India bolts Right to Life with climate justice”, The Economic Times, 06-05-2024)
As per the aforementioned passage and decision of the Supreme Court:
Correct Answer :
Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources
Solution :
The correct option is: Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources
Explanation:
1. Passage Analysis:
The given passage explicitly highlights the legal and constitutional foundation of environmental protection in India. Specifically, it mentions:
"The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 introduced the concept of environmental protection in an explicit manner into the Constitution through introduction of Article 48-A and Article 51-A (g). In many judgments, the Supreme Court ruled that both the state and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources."
2. Evaluating the Options:
• Option 1: Suggests the duty lies upon the State only. This is incorrect because the passage explicitly mentions both the state and its residents (citizens).
• Option 2: Suggests citizens alone have this duty. This is incorrect for the same reason.
• Option 3: States that "Both the state and citizens have the duty to preserve and protect natural resources". This directly matches the statement in the text highlighting Article 48-A (Directive Principles of State Policy - duty of the State) and Article 51-A (g) (Fundamental Duties - duty of every citizen).
• Option 4: Focuses on a narrower aspect mentioned later in the passage, but fails to capture the core fundamental duty framework explicitly stated for both entities regarding natural resource preservation.
Therefore, based strictly on the passage provided, the correct statement is that both the state and citizens have the fundamental duty to preserve and protect natural resources.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
