For First Time, Supreme Court Recognizes Right To Be Free From Adverse Effects Of Climate Change

“The right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21 must be appreciated in the context of the decisions of this Court, the actions and commitments of the state on the national and international level, and scientific consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. From these, it emerges that there is a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. It is important to note that while giving effect to this right, courts must be alive to other rights of affected communities such as the right against displacement and allied rights.,” the judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud stated.

It may be noted that these observations are part of the same decision where the three-judge bench constituted an expert committee to examine the scope, feasibility, and extent of installing overhead and underground powerlines in areas considered 'Priority' for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The issue essentially stems from the deaths of the Bustards due to the collision with overhead transmission wires installed at solar panel projects. 

The bench dictated the operative directions on March 21. The detailed judgment, which was uploaded yesterday, contains an elaborate discussion on climate change and India's international commitments to reduce the carbon footprint.

To summarise, the Bench, including Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, modified the Apex Court's previous order dated 19 April 2021, which ordered blanket directions for the undergrounding of high-voltage and low-voltage power lines. However, the Union sought modification of this order, citing the need to balance the issue of the protection of the GIB with India's international commitment to reduce its carbon footprint. The Union stated that installing solar panels is crucial in India's obligation towards international commitment. Observing that it is best to leave the issue to the domain experts, the Court constituted the aforementioned committee, which is required to submit a report on or before July 31, 2024.

At the outset, the Court noted that the absence of legislation in India regarding climate change would not mean that “the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change.”

Following this, the Court cited landmark judgments, including M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, which has recognized the right to a clean environment as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. However, at the same time, the Court also underlined that “it is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change.” Observing how climate change is increasing year by year, the Court underscored the need to recognize this right as a distinct one.

Elucidating how climate change affects the right to equality, the Court presented several intriguing examples.

“If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones. The right to equality would undoubtedly be impacted in each of these instances.,” the Court said.

Similarly, the Court also cited the example of indigenous groups and forest dwellers who could lose their homes and culture because their way of life is closely linked to the land and resources they depend on. To strengthen this, the Court stated that the tribal population in Nicobar Island still leads a traditional life. The Court also demonstrated how traditional lives led by the indigenous communities are more dependent on land than the urban population. 

“India faces a number of pressing near-term challenges that directly impact the right to a healthy environment, particularly for vulnerable and indigenous communities including forest dwellers. The lack of reliable electricity supply for many citizens not only hinders economic development but also disproportionately affects communities, including women and low-income households, further perpetuating inequalities. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment encapsulates the principle that every individual has the entitlement to live in an environment that is clean, safe, and conducive to their well-being. By recognizing the right to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, states are compelled to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development, thereby addressing the root causes of climate change and safeguarding the well being of present and future generations.,” the Court added.

Lastly, it may be noted that the Court also emphasized climate responsibilities under international law. For instance, the Court mentioned the Paris Agreement, which acknowledges how climate change is connected to different human rights. In this context, the Court stated:

“It is imperative for states like India, to uphold their obligations under international law, including their responsibilities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and protect the fundamental rights of all individuals to live in a healthy and sustainable environment.”

In conclusion, the Court advocated a balanced approach and observed that a blanket direction for undergrounding high voltage and low voltage power lines of the nature that was directed by the Court earlier in 2021 would need recalibration.

"While balancing two equally crucial goals - the conservation of the GIB on one hand, with the conservation of the environment as a whole on the other hand - it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach which does not sacrifice either of the two goals at the altar of the other."

CASE TITLE: MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 838/2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Click here to read/ download the judgment