Resources › CA MCQ Practice
4 Jun 2026Environment & Ecology3 questions

Rajendra Singh Raises Concerns Over Projects in Eco-Sensitive Zones

UPSC-standard MCQs with explanations, trap analysis, and approach guide. Answer after the test — not before.

1

Easy

1

Medium

1

Hard

Practice this set

3 questions · full analysis after submission · no sign-up required

Article summary

Renowned water conservationist and Magsaysay Award winner Rajendra Singh, often called the 'Waterman of India', has raised serious concerns about the approval and execution of developmental projects within eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) across India, with specific reference to Andhra Pradesh. ESZs are buffer areas notified around protected forests, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, intended to regulate and restrict certain activities that could harm core ecological areas. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly mandated that a minimum 1-km ESZ be maintained around all protected areas, yet ground-level violations through mining, infrastructure, and industrial projects continue to be reported. Singh's intervention highlights the persistent tension between developmental imperatives and ecological preservation, particularly in biodiversity-rich regions. For UPSC aspirants, this issue sits at the intersection of environmental law, governance accountability, and India's international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

What this tests

recallTests whether you read the article and retained key facts.
1Q
applicationTests whether you can apply the concept to a new scenario.
1Q
analysisTests whether you can reason across multiple related facts.
1Q

Sample questions — answers revealed after test

Environment & EcologyRecallEasy

Q1. Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around protected areas in India are declared under which provision of law?

ASection 3(2)(v) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986
BSection 26A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
CSection 5 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980
DSection 19 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Environment & EcologyApplicationMedium

Q2. A state government grants environmental clearance for a limestone quarrying project located 0.7 km from the boundary of a national park. An environmental activist challenges this clearance. Which of the following statements best describes the legal standing of this challenge?

AThe challenge is legally strong because the Supreme Court has mandated a minimum 1-km Eco-Sensitive Zone around every protected area, and quarrying is a prohibited activity within ESZs.
BThe challenge has no merit because the state government's environmental clearance under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 overrides any ESZ restriction.
CThe challenge is weak because ESZ boundaries are advisory in nature and states retain discretion to permit extractive industries within them on a case-by-case basis.
DThe challenge has limited scope because the National Green Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over activities within Eco-Sensitive Zones under current law.
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Environment & EcologyAnalysisHard

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) regulatory framework in India: 1. Violations of ESZ regulations are prosecuted under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, since ESZs are buffers around wildlife-protected areas. 2. The Supreme Court's 2022 directive mandating a minimum 1-km ESZ around protected areas is legally binding on both the Central and state governments. 3. ESZs function as 'shock absorbers' between the core protected area and the surrounding human-use landscape, regulating but not prohibiting all developmental activities. 4. The Kasturirangan Committee's recommendations were specifically focused on ESZ demarcation in the Himalayan region.

AStatements 2 and 3 only are correct
BStatements 1, 2, and 3 are correct
CStatements 2, 3, and 4 are correct
DStatements 1 and 4 only are correct
Answer revealed after you submit the test