'Institutional Lacunae Undermines Climate Action, Coordinated Effort Of Various Ministries Needed' : Supreme Court

Various Ministries overseeing environmental issues appear to be working in "silos", observed the Supreme Court, while expressing a concern that "institutional lacuna undermines comprehensive climate action and engenders accountability deficit."

The Court also observed that a reassessment of existing statutes, such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and other similar legislations is necessary with a view to incorporate climate-centric enforceable mandates.

The Court further said that various regulatory bodies, such as the Pollution Control Boards, often grapple with fiscal constraints.

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra made these significant observations while hearing a PIL filed by child-activist, Ridhima Pandey on the issue of carbon emissions and their impact on the environment. 

Considering the significance of coordinated efforts for measures against increased carbon emissions, the Supreme Court sought responses from eight major Union Ministries related to environment policies. 

The Court issued notice and sought a response from the following Union Ministries as well :

i) Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE); ii) Ministry of Power; iii) Ministry of Urban Development; iv) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH); v) Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MOPNG); vi) Ministry of Textiles; and vii) Department of Science and Technology; viii) Ministry of Mines.

The bench directed : "Let notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondents. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General takes notice on behalf the newly impleaded respondents." 

The Court also flagged major concerns about the rising signs of climate change and its potential to cause social, economic, and legal devastation of quality of life. The bench observed : 

 Climate change has ascended as one of the most existential global predicament, wielding profound ramifications beyond mere environmental degradation. Escalating temperatures, erratic weather patterns, and the proliferation of extreme climatic events such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves not only imperil ecosystems but also disrupt human life, livelihoods and socio-economic structures. The economic ramifications are equally profound, as climate change exacerbates vulnerabilities to public health, low per acre yield leading to declining agricultural productivity and increase in energy consumption amongst many other effects.

The socio-economic repercussions are particularly acute in fast developing nations like India, where vast populations depend on climate-sensitive sectors for subsistence. Thus, addressing climate change transcends environmentalism, emerging as an exigent matter of economic resilience, social justice, and sustainable development.

The Court observed that Indian domestic policy domain has adopted and developed Pivotal initiatives including the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), National Clean Air Programme, and the State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) as a consequence of its international environmental law obligations. 

However, the bench further held that for an effective implementation of the said policies, " a meticulous reassessment of existing statutes, such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and other similar legislations with a view to incorporating climate-centric enforceable mandates." 

 Acknowledging the various obstructions that government entities face for climate change, like capacity, resources, and its enforcement, the Court held that such an 'institutional lacuna creates accountability deficit and defeats the objective of climate action. 

The bench cited various examples of such institutional lacuna affecting efficient administration : 

"For instance, the CAQM-constituted to mitigate air pollution in the National Capital Region lacks jurisdictional competence beyond delineated territories, thereby circumscribing its operational efficacy. Moreover, inter- ministerial coordination among entities overseeing such as Ministries of Environment, Renewable Energy, Power, and Urban Development, Petroleum & Natural Gas, Textile, and Department of Science and Technology appears to be working in silos. This institutional lacuna undermines comprehensive climate action and engenders accountability deficit." 

 "Additionally, regulatory bodies often grapple with fiscal constraints, staffing inadequacies, and restricted access to real time empirical data, further attenuating their operational effectiveness." Court added further. 

ASG Banerjee and Sr Advocate Swarupma Chaturvedi appeared for the Union. Advocate Rahul Choudhary represented the petitioner. On the last hearing, the Court appointed Advocates Jay Cheema and Sudhir Mishra as Amici Curiae to examine the existing legal framework governing emissions.

The matter will now be heard on March 28. 

Background 

The petition was originally filed in 2017 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The petitioner filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court after the NGT dismissed it in 2019.

The plea highlights various adverse impacts of climate change in India, such as glacier melting in the Himalayas, rising sea levels, loss of mangrove areas, increased climate refugees, extreme rainfall events, and ocean acidification

The plea raises serious concerns about the lack of integration of climate commitments—such as those under the Paris Agreement—into domestic policies. It emphasizes that government decisions often neglect climate impact assessments, particularly in approving carbon-intensive projects.

The plea argues for the establishment of a “carbon budget” till 2050 to limit emissions and seeks rigorous climate impact assessments as part of environmental and forest clearances of various projects. It also seeks the creation of a time-bound national climate recovery plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the petition, while India has made international commitments, such as reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of its GDP by 33-35 percent by 2030, its domestic actions, including approving carbon-intensive projects, often contradict these pledges. The petitioner argues that these projects lack adequate climate impact assessments under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and fail to consider the broader consequences on carbon emissions and climate change.

The appeal also raises concerns about the lack of enforcement of existing environmental laws, such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It calls for a detailed assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from approved projects. the development of a “carbon budget” to limit emissions in line with global targets, and the creation of a time-bound climate recovery plan to mitigate emissions and enhance carbon sinks.

The petition further emphasizes that vulnerable populations, especially children, are disproportionately affected by climate change, making the need for government accountability even more urgent.

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

Case : Ridhima Pandey vs Union of India | Civil Appeal No(s). 388/2021

Click here to read the order