Retrospective environmental clearance: Vanashakti 2026

1. Question 1Answer D

   Vanashakti v Union of India (2026 INSC 761) was decided on:

   • A20 July 2026
   • B18 August 2026
   • C7 July 2021
   • DCorrect answer: 29 July 2026

   Core Trigger: On 29 July 2026 the Supreme Court decided Vanashakti v Union of India (2026 INSC 761), quashing a 2021 clearance memorandum.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 1

2. Question 2Answer C

   Prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006 is mandatory unless validly amended by:

   • AOffice memorandum
   • BExecutive circular
   • CCorrect answer: Notification
   • DCourt order

   Holding: Prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006 is mandatory unless validly amended by notification.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 2

3. Question 3Answer B

   Who wrote the Vanashakti judgment?

   • ACJI Surya Kant
   • BCorrect answer: Justice Joymalya Bagchi
   • CJustice Vikram Nath
   • DJustice P.S. Narasimha

   Current Head: CJI Surya Kant headed the Bench; Justice Joymalya Bagchi wrote the judgment.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 3

4. Question 4Answer C

   The 7 July 2021 MoEFCC Office Memorandum was held to violate which Articles?

   • AArticles 19 and 21
   • BArticles 14 and 19
   • CCorrect answer: Articles 14 and 21
   • DArticles 21 and 300A

   Quashed Memo: The MoEFCC Office Memorandum of 7 July 2021 was a perpetual amnesty scheme violating Articles 14 and 21.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 4

5. Question 5Answer A

   Consider: 1. The 2017 Notification (S.O. 804(E)) was upheld as valid, time-bound delegated legislation. 2. It was issued on 7 July 2021. Which is/are correct?

   • ACorrect answer: Only 1
   • BOnly 2
   • CBoth 1 and 2
   • DNeither

   Upheld Notice: The Court upheld the 2017 Notification (S.O. 804(E), 14 March 2017) as valid, narrowly tailored, time-bound delegated legislation.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 5

6. Question 6Answer B

   Consider: 1. Clearances already granted are automatically cancelled. 2. No fresh application lies under either instrument. Which is/are correct?

   • AOnly 1
   • BCorrect answer: Only 2
   • CBoth 1 and 2
   • DNeither

   Stakeholders: Clearances already granted stay valid unless challenged on merits; no fresh application lies under either instrument.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 6

7. Question 7Answer D

   In which city is the Supreme Court that decided Vanashakti located?

   • AMumbai
   • BBhubaneswar
   • CKolkata
   • DCorrect answer: New Delhi

   Venue: The judgment came from the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 8

8. Question 8Answer B

   The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 gave effect to which international declaration?

   • ARio Declaration
   • BCorrect answer: Stockholm Declaration
   • CParis Agreement
   • DKyoto Protocol

   Founded: The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 gave effect to the Stockholm Declaration of June 1972.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 9

9. Question 9Answer B

   The EIA Notification 2006, superseding the 1994 one, set how many stages?

   • ATwo
   • BCorrect answer: Four
   • CThree
   • DFive

   Landmark: The EIA Notification of 27 January 1994 introduced prior clearance; the 2006 Notification superseded it with four stages.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 10

10. Question 10Answer D

    In Vanashakti the Court used which Article to quash the memorandum only prospectively?

    • AArticle 32
    • BArticle 136
    • CArticle 226
    • DCorrect answer: Article 142

    Doctrine: Article 142 lets the Court do complete justice, here quashing only prospectively; Articles 48A and 51A(g) underpin environmental protection.From Book 1 RATNA, topic 053, point 12

Open these answers in the app (sign-in needed)