Groundbreaking Judgement: Supreme Court of India Affirms Constitutional Right to Protection from Climate Change

M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

INTRODUCTION

Barack Obama’s statement, “We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it,” underscores the urgency of our environmental crisis. Human activities, particularly industrial operations, plastic pollution, and fossil fuel consumption, have disrupted Earth’s ecological balance. To safeguard our planet, significant behavioral changes and restoration efforts are necessary. In India, the Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in environmental protection through its rulings. A landmark decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India has recently established a constitutional right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change, linking this right to existing protections under Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution. This judgment sets a new precedent in environmental litigation and policy-making in India, emphasizing the need for tailored protections for vulnerable demographics, including women, economically disadvantaged groups, indigenous communities, and people in specific geographic areas.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Great Indian Bustard (GIB), Ardeotis nigriceps, native to southern and western India, particularly Rajasthan, is critically endangered. Once abundant in grasslands and arid regions, its population has plummeted due to habitat loss, hunting, and disturbances. The IUCN classified it as ‘critically endangered’ in 2011, with its status reaffirmed in 2018. The drastic decline in its numbers, exacerbated by threats like pollution, climate change, and predation, has made conservation efforts urgent.

In 2013, the Rajasthan government estimated a GIB population of about 125, while the IUCN reported 50 to 249 mature individuals. Overhead power lines, habitat loss from human expansion, and predation pose significant threats. In response, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed, seeking judicial intervention to enhance conservation measures for the GIB.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case builds on fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 21, which guarantees the right to life. Previous judgments have recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment as integral to this right. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Court emphasized that disturbances to essential environmental elements like air, water, and soil endanger life. Similarly, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana reaffirmed that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment.

The Court highlighted that without a stable environment, the right to life is compromised. By expanding this right to include protection from climate change’s adverse effects, the Court has strengthened the legal framework for environmental protection. This evolution connects environmental and climate law, as seen in cases like Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri. C. Kenchappa, where the judiciary has emphasized the importance of integrating environmental considerations into legal decisions.

REASONING

In its April 19, 2021, judgment, the Court issued directives to mitigate risks to the GIB caused by overhead power lines. The initial order required the conversion of all low-voltage overhead lines in GIB habitats to underground cables and mandated bird diverters on existing lines. Despite opposition from stakeholders due to practical challenges, the Court modified these directives to address technical and logistical issues.

The Court’s reasoning is multifaceted:

1. Environmental Protection as a Fundamental Right: The Court emphasized that a clean environment is essential for realizing the right to life, affecting both current and future generations. This duty falls on the state to preserve and protect the environment.
2. International Conventions: The Court acknowledged India’s commitments under international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, aiming for a significant share of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. Promoting renewable energy is crucial for social equity and access to clean energy.
3. Impact of Power Lines on GIB: Recognizing the threat posed by overhead power lines to GIB, the Court agreed with the petitioners that bird diverters and undergrounding power lines are necessary to mitigate this risk.
4. Balance Between Development and Conservation: The Court noted the challenge of balancing infrastructure development with wildlife conservation. It mandated technical evaluations and case-by-case analyses to ensure feasible solutions without unduly impeding development.
5. Role of Government: Both state and central governments were tasked with implementing conservation measures. The Court called for an empowered committee to oversee and ensure effective execution of its directives and conservation efforts for the GIB.

APPRAISAL OF THE JUDGMENT: EMBRACING THE POSITIVE IMPACT

The judgment is grounded in constitutional principles and judicial precedents, interpreting Article 21 to encompass environmental protection. The Court’s approach, supported by scientific evidence, ensures that measures are both legally sound and effective. By balancing conservation with development, the Court acknowledges practical challenges while emphasizing the importance of protecting endangered species.

The establishment of an empowered committee to oversee the implementation of conservation measures ensures accountability and continuity. The focus on a national policy for grasslands and grazing addresses habitat degradation, supporting the long-term conservation of the GIB.

Climate change impacts health through extreme weather events, disease patterns, and food and water security. The right to health, recognized under international human rights instruments, implies that states must safeguard individuals from climate-related health risks. The Court’s decision also aligns with the right to equality, addressing the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized communities, including indigenous and tribal groups.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India marks a significant development in Indian legal history. By establishing a constitutional right to protection from climate change and linking it to the right to a clean environment, the Court has set a precedent for future environmental litigation and policy-making. The judgment balances development and conservation, emphasizing the need for sustainable practices. It reinforces the connection between environmental protection and fundamental rights, signaling a crucial step toward ensuring a sustainable and equitable future.