Ninety Tonnes of Cloth in Three Weeks: The Madras High Court Meets Article 25
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
A Madurai bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed on 9 July 2026 that no one has a right to pollute a water body in the name of religion, holding that the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 is subject to public health. The observation came in Sivanupandian v. District Collector, concerning large-scale dumping of clothes and other articles into the Thamirabarani river during death rituals. The figures placed before the court were substantial: cleaning drives conducted between 7 and 28 May 2026 recovered roughly 86 to 90 tonnes of discarded clothes, along with 1,385 kg of plastic waste, 220 kg of glass bottles, 115 kg of slippers, 700 kg of burnt bricks and 374 kg of sanitary napkins and diapers, while an environmental activist told the court that more than a tonne of clothing enters the river daily after funeral rites. Notably, the bench declined to impose an immediate prohibition, instead inviting religious organisations, devotees and activists to present their views before final orders — an approach that treats the practice as something to be reformed with its community rather than banned over it. The Thamirabarani is one of southern India's few perennial rivers and a principal drinking water source for Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi.
What this tests
Sample questions — answers revealed after test
Q1. With reference to the Thamirabarani river, which one of the following statements is correct?
Q2. A High Court holds that no one has a right to pollute a water body in the name of religion. On the reasoning adopted, which one of the following best states the constitutional basis for that conclusion?
Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Thamirabarani case: 1. The right to a clean environment has been read into Article 21, notably in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), while Article 48A directs the State to protect the environment and Article 51A(g) makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen. 2. Cleaning drives conducted between 7 and 28 May 2026 recovered about 86 to 90 tonnes of discarded clothes along with plastic, glass and other waste from the river. 3. The bench imposed an immediate and absolute ban on the conduct of funeral rituals anywhere along the river. Which of the statements given above are correct?