Protecting Our Planet: Supreme Court’s Bold Move in Climate Battle

« »

16-May-2024 | Samiksha Kanaujia

Climate change is not just an environmental concern, but an imminent crisis that requires immediate action. In a recent judgement in the domain of environment law, the Supreme Court of India upheld a petition by a conservationist and former government official M K Ranjitsinh to safeguard the Lesser Florican and Great Indian Bustard (GIB).

In addition, a panel of three judges in the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and other two justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, established an unprecedented constitutional right to be protected against the adverse effects of climate change and requested an emergency response plan for the GIB recovery and protection. The judgement invoked the Article 21 (fundamental right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (fundamental right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. It is to be noted that the information regarding the judgement is publicly available on the court website.

Background of the Case

On March 21, 2024, the SC handed down a landmark decision on climate change and human rights in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others. The verdict is based on some landmark cases such as MC Mehta v. UOI (1986), Virender Gaur vs State of Haryana (1995), MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) and other crucial jurisprudence.
The ruling resulted from a writ case filed before the SC under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, M.K. Ranjitsinh, asked for orders to protect the GIB and the Lesser Florican, an endangered species of bird.
- The GIB is facing extinction due to a multitude of reasons, such as climate change and the presence of overhead electricity wires.
As per ruling on April 19, 2021, the SC has imposed limitations on the placement of overhead transmission lines in a region covering approximately 99,000 square kilometres, covering parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan to protect the birds.
- Additionally, the court has instructed the conversion of overhead power lines to underground power lines in areas that are significant for the GIB.
In the Indian constitutional law, the right to clean the environment is recognised under Article 21, which guarantees the fundamental right to life. However, in the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh, the SC extended the protection against the negative impacts of climate change to include Article 14, which guarantees the fundamental right to equality.
- The court highlighted the challenges faced by communities in India that are more impacted by climate change due to their geographical and economic conditions, which could potentially violate their freedom protected under Article 14.

Outcome of the Case

The SC amended its 2021 order in the Ranjitsinh case, delving into a thorough debate of India's international obligations to address climate change and the role that renewable energy, particularly solar energy, plays in sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
The Court emphasized that there is no "binary choice between conservation and development," emphasizing the need to strike a balance between protecting biodiversity and reducing the effects of climate change.
- Any disruption to these fundamental elements of the environment would constitute a breach of Article 21. Furthermore, it mandates that the state should uphold ecological equilibrium and ensure cleanliness in the environment.
Rather than ruling on the matter itself, the SC in the MK Ranjitsinh case established an Expert Committee to determine whether it would be feasible to install power lines in GIB habitat. This result demonstrates that the judiciary may not always be in the best position to decide on technical matters that call for the opinion of subject matter experts.

Global Climate Litigations

The judgment by the SC is not of its first kind; there are several International Jurisprudence on the subject.

Switzerland: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the rights of a Swiss association of older women concerned about the effects of global warming on their living conditions and health under the ECHR in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on April 9, 2024 under Article 8 - right to respect for private and family life.
- In a climate change case, the ECHR ordered national governments to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. It held that the Swiss government's failure to reach the emissions targets violated human rights. It was the first global court ruling to link human rights violations to climate change inaction.
Netherlands: In State of Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2019), the Dutch SC upheld the ECHR Article 2 (Right to life) and Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life), mandating the state to adopt climate measures. The order compelled the Dutch government's greenhouse gas emissions to be cut by 25% from 1990 levels.
- The Dutch SC admitted that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming and warned of the dire consequences of a 2°C temperature rise affecting family dynamics and endangering human rights.
- It went on to say that the right to a private and family life extends to environmental issues, where pollution directly impairs these rights, requiring states to take "reasonable measures to protect them".

Other Important Climate Litigations in India

In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. (1997), also known as the Forest case in India.
- The writ petition filed in the year 1995 was to ensure the preservation and protection of the forest land of the Nilgiris, which was being exploited by unlawful forestry activities.
- The SC held that both the state and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources.
In case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), also known as the Taj Mahal case or the Oleum gas leakage case.
- After the 1984 Bhopal Gas Disaster, the judgment changed the scope, extent, and application of not only environmental laws in India, but also Article 21's right to life and personal liberty and Article 32's remedies for fundamental rights violations.
In case of Virender Gaur vs State of Haryana (1995), the SC recognised the right to clean environment under article 21.
- Denying construction on the public land, the court held that the right of individuals to a clean and safe environment is protected under Article 21.
- It maintained that any construction undertaken with the intention to violate this right will be invalidated.
In case of MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000), a landmark case in Indian environmental law.
- The SC invoked Article 48A, under which the State shall seek to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. And clause (g) of Article 51A, which states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
- The court held that these two articles must be interpreted in the light of Article 21 (fundamental right to life and liberty), implying that any disturbances to air, water, soil - the basic elements for life, would be hazardous to “life” within the meaning.
- In 1976, the 42nd constitutional amendment incorporated the concept of environmental preservation into the constitution by adding Article 48A and Article 51A (g).

Shortcomings of the Judgement

The verdict is deeply anthropocentric and insensitive to the court's own ecocentric law and legal recognition of the more-than-human in India: the endangered birds that were the subject of the original petition are denied protection from the blanket ban on new overhead power lines in the region.
Furthermore, the court seems completely unaware of the extremely negative effects that large-scale renewable energy (solar) projects have on the environment and human rights.
The ruling says nothing about how the relaxation of limits on overhead electricity transmission lines in the area will probably also help non-renewable power sources.
The judgment fails to provide any information on the practical measures that would be taken to safeguard the newly declared right.

Conclusion

The SC's acknowledgment of the right to combat climate change is a significant step towards safeguarding the environment and upholding human rights. The right to a clean environment exists, but acknowledging the right against climate change will compel states to prioritise environmental conservation and sustainable growth. This judgment will require the government to implement effective climate change mitigation measures to protect the environment and fundamental rights of life and equality. The ruling points to the fact that we need to think about climate justice in relation with environmental conservation, sustainable development and human welfare. Though what will be interesting to see is how the court will respond to class actions or communities uniting against the state and/or private sector over climate change, in the future cases. Will it maintain delicate equilibrium or emphasize the right to life? However, a judgment like M.K. Ranjitsinh will strengthen arguments that explicitly address climate change's adverse impacts before the judiciary.

References: