'Adverse Effect Of Climate Change Will Be On Nation's Future' : Supreme Court Stresses Importance Of Forest Protection

A week after recognizing for the first time the fundamental right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, the Supreme Court has delivered another judgment highlighting the potential adverse impacts of climate change.

The judgment cited a report published by the Reserve Bank of India titled “Report on Currency and Finance; Towards a Greener Cleaner India” (2022-23), which, the Court said, presented a "very disturbing scenario."

"The report clearly suggests the enormous potential impact of climate change on the society, leading to serious job losses in every sector. Therefore, the adverse effect will be on the future of the nation as a whole, as against an identifiable group," the Court observed.

The judgment quoted from the RBI report as follows :

"Climate change manifested through rising temperature and changing patterns of monsoon rainfall in India could cost the economy 2.8 per cent of its GDP and depress the living standards of nearly half of its population by 2050 (Mani et al., 2018). India could lose anywhere around 3 per cent to 10 per cent of its GDP annually by 2100 due to climate change (Kompas et al., 2018; Picciariello et al., 2021) in the absence of adequate mitigation policies. Furthermore, Indian agriculture (along with construction activity) as well as industry are particularly vulnerable to labour productivity losses caused by heat related stress (Somnathan et al., 2021). India could account for 34 million of the projected 80 million global job losses from heat stress associated productivity decline by 2030 (World Bank, 2022). Further, up to 4.5 per cent of India's GDP could be at risk by 2030 owing to lost labour hours from extreme heat and humidity conditions."

In this backdrop, the Court discussed the importance of forest protection. "A difference of one and half degree Celsius in temperature saves the global economy tens of trillions of dollars," the Court said. The Court observed that a country with excess forest cover would be in a position to sell its excess carbon credit to the one in deficit.

On April 8, a 3-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in the case MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India, recognized for the first time the right to be free from the 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 in MK Ranjitsinh stated.

Importance of forest protection

In the present case (State of Telangana and ors vs Mohd Abdul Qasim), the Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti underscored the significance of the forest for the survival of diverse forms of life.

“Human beings indulge themselves in selective amnesia when it comes to fathom the significance of forests. It is the forests which give life to the Earth by replacing carbon dioxide with oxygen, thereby providing a hospitable environment for the steady growth of diverse life forms. It's the spirit of the forest that moves the Earth. History shall not be understood from the jaundiced eyes of humans but through the prism of the environment, the forest in particular.”, the Judgment authored by Justice MM Sundresh said.

The court highlighted how the developmental activities of humans are inadvertently destroying the humans themselves, where despite taking selfless motherly service from the forest, the humans are continuing to destroy the forests.

“Forests not only provide for and facilitate the sustenance of life, but they also continue to protect and foster it. They continue to tackle the ever-increasing carbon dioxide emissions produced by humans in the name of development, while striving to sustain all species. Despite the unblemished, selfless and motherly service rendered by forests, man in his folly continues with their destruction, unmindful of the fact that he is inadvertently destroying himself.”

The court indicated that rather than the affluent class, the vulnerable class who are dependent on the forest's resources are most affected by the destruction of forest cover.

“It is the vulnerable sections of the society who would be most affected by the depletion of forests, considering the fact that the more affluent sections of society have better access to resources as compared to them. Therefore, the protection of forests is in the interest of mankind, even assuming that the other factors can be ignored.”

Observing that the forests serve the Earth in a myriad of ways ranging from regulating carbon emissions, aiding in soil conservation and regulating the water cycle, the court said forests also play a pivotal role in controlling pollution, which significantly affects the underprivileged, violating their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

While placing reliance on the case of Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, the court discussed about the concept of 'environmental equity' which stated how the disproportionate implications of environmental harms on the economically or socially marginalised groups.

“The concerns of human rights and environmental degradation overlap under this umbrella term, to highlight the human element, apart from economic and environmental ramifications. Environmental equity thus stands to ensure a balanced distribution of environmental risks as well as protections, including application of sustainable development principles.”, the court said in Ankita Sinha.

Background

The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court came while dealing with the civil appeal preferred by the State of Telangana against the decision of the High Court whereby the High Court while exercising the review jurisdiction hadn't disputed the title of the respondent-private person over the forest land who wasn't successful in proving the title over the forest land, moreover, the High Court graciously gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title.

While allowing the state's appeal, the court has imposed the cost Rs. 5 lakhs each on the appellants and respondents. The court said that the appellants state is free to recover the said amount from the erring officials who are responsible for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits in the ongoing proceedings.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Singh, Adv. Ms. Pranali Tayade, Adv. Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Mrs. Medha Singh, Adv. Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dharmesh Dk Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, Adv. Ms. Pranali Tayade, Adv. Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv.

Case Title: THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. VERSUS MOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Click here to read/download the Judgment