Supreme Court Recognizes Right To Be Free From Adverse Effects Of Climate Change

Context

Recently, the Supreme Court of India historically stated that people have a right to be free from adverse effects of climate change recognised by Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Right To Be Free From Adverse Effects Of Climate Change: Background & Evolution of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court passed its judgment in a case titled M K Ranjitsinh & Ors versus Union of India & Ors regarding the protection of two critically endangered bird species on the IUCN Red List – the great Indian bustard (GIB) and the lesser florican. 
  • Both are scheduled species listed under Part III of Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 
• Earlier Judgment: In April 2021, the Court placed restrictions on setting up of overhead transmission lines. 
  • Evaluation by Expert Committee: It appointed a committee to evaluate the laying of underground high-voltage lines on a case-to-case basis. 
  • On Powerlines: All low voltage power lines were directed to be laid underground in the “priority” and “potential” habitats of GIB in the future. 
    • For existing power lines, bird diverters were to be installed that were pending for the conversion of overhead power lines into underground power lines.
• Central Government’s Action: The Bench was faced with a plea by three Union Ministries — Environment, Power, and New and Renewable Energy. 
  • Since the major solar and wind energy producing installations of India are in Rajasthan and Gujarat area, the Centre claimed the court’s directions will harm India’s global commitments to reduce the carbon footprint by increasing dependence on renewable energy sources.
• Action by the Supreme Court: The court recalled an earlier order for the requirement of undergrounding of overhead transmission lines across an area of over 80,000 sq km in the two states.
• Recent Judgment: In April 2024, the Court placed its reliance on several reports by the Wildlife Institute of India identifying 13,663 square km as the “priority area”; 80,680 square km as “potential areas”; and 6,654 square km as “additional important areas” for the GIB.
  • Formation of an Expert Committee: The bench formed an expert committee comprising independent experts, members of the National Board of Wildlife, representatives of power companies, and former and serving bureaucrats drawn from departments of environment and forests and ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE).
  • Aim: The Committee is formed to suggest ways to balance two objectives – the conservation of the bird and India’s sustainable development goals. 

Rationale Behind the Decision of the Supreme Court

• Environment, Health & Right to Life: 

• • The apex court had long ago recognised the right to live in a clean environment as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
    • M C Mehta v Union of India (1987) Case: The Supreme Court treated the right to live in a pollution-free environment as a part of the Right to Life. 
    • Since then, several SC verdicts have underlined that people have a right to breathe unpolluted air, drink clean water and live a healthy life.

• Increasing Climatic Threats: 

  • The Court has now reasoned that the right to be protected from climate change and the right to a wholesome environment are inseparable and increasing threat from climate change year after year is a violation of fundamental right. 
    • Climate change has an adverse impact on life through factors ranging from rising temperatures, storms and droughts to food shortages due to crop failure and shifts in vector-borne diseases. 

• Risk of Deepening of Inequality: 

  • If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer.
    • The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14).

Conclusion

All associated stakeholders are required to work in a collaborative and proactive manner to come out with an effective solution to balance two objectives viz. the conservation of the bird and India’s sustainable development goals.

DOWNLOAD PDF