Supreme Court of India bolts Right To Life with climate justice

Climate change, rather than depicting a mere environmental challenge, poses an existential crisis that demands urgent rapproche. The recent Supreme Court of India judgment M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1] has created buzz around climate justice in India. The judgment reads in the right against climate change to protect the rights to life, health, food, water and a healthy environment. It recognizes the collective responsibility to take immediate action and advocates for policies that prioritize both human rights and climate action.

Global Jurisprudence

What the Supreme Court of India has pronounced is not novel if one surveys the International Jurisprudence on the subject. The Courts and tribunals across the globe and more recently on 9th April, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] in 16:1 edifying judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, has upheld the rights of a Swiss association whose members are all older women concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living condition and health due to insufficiency on the part of Swiss authorities for lack of adequate action to mitigate the effects of Climate Change under the European Convention on Human Rights and more particularly Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life).

The ECHR delivered a ruling in climate change case aimed to make national government meet treaty obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It held that failure of Swiss government to meet the emissions target that did violate their human rights. The petitioner protested against woefully inadequate efforts to fight against climate change. It was the first authoritative judgment from a supranational court that directly links human rights violations to insufficient or non-ambitious action on climate change.

The Court in its majority view declared that there is a right for individuals to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of Climate Change on their lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. Court emphasized on the causal relationship between Climate Change and the enjoyment of the Convention rights.

Similarly, in State of Netherland v. Urgenda Foundation (2019), the Dutch Supreme court had acknowledged the obligation under their Article 2 (Right to life) and Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights compelling the state to adopt climate policies. The Dutch government was required by the order to cut greenhouse gas emissions coming from its territory by a minimum of 25% as compared to levels in 1990. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands acknowledged the clear link between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, highlighting the serious repercussions of a temperature increase of more than 2 degree Celsius, which might endanger human rights and disturb family dynamics. It added that the right to a private and family life extends to environmental issues in which pollution directly impairs these rights, requiring States to take "reasonable measures to protect them".

The Jurisprudence overseas has been more pronounced and emphatic, emphasizing the state authority to address adverse effects on livelihood and life. The judgments are wider in their realm since they are not only against the state authority but also in cases where private parties have been arrayed such as 2021 judgment in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. Therefore the Supreme Court’s judgment in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. in that sense does not pip the space on climate justice as there are previous precedents globally on the subject.

Indian Law

Human Rights as defined by the PHR Act 1993 means rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of an individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India, i.e., Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; The Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The 42nd constitutional amendment 1976 introduced the principle of environmental protection in an explicit manner into constitution through introduction of Article 48A and Article 51A (g). Article 48A part of the Directive Principle of State Policy provides that “State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” Additionally, Article 51A(g) specifically stipulates the “fundamental duty of the citizens to protect and improve the natural environment which includes forests, rivers, lakes, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.” Under T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. (1997), The Supreme Court ruled that both the state and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources. The recent judgment obliquely makes way for an enforceable right, and a potential obligation on the state unless the same is overturned by an act of Parliament.

India is signatory of various international environmental conservation treaties under which India has the binding commitment to reduce carbon emission. During the COP 21, India signed Paris Agreement along with 196 countries, under which universally binding agreement was made to limit greenhouse gas emission to levels that would prevent global temperatures from increasing to more than 1.5 degree Celsius before the industrial revolution. India has committed to generating 50% of its energy through renewable resources and will generate 500 GW of energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030, reducing the carbon emission by 1 billion ton. Additionally, India has committed to achieve net zero carbon emission target by 2070.

M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors and earlier Indian Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ruled that that people have a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change which should be recognised by Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling of the Supreme Court was rendered in response to a writ brought by conservationist and retired government official M K Ranjitsinh, who sought protection for two endangered species namely the Lessor Florican and the Great Indian Bustard. Among other things, the plea asked for the creation and execution of an emergency response plan for the Great Indian Bustard's recovery and protection. This plan would include instructions on how to install bird diverters, a ban on the approval of new projects and the renewal of leases for those that already exist, and the removal of power lines, wind turbines, and solar panels from critical habitats.

Supreme Court’s March 21, 2024 verdict builds on the bulwark of jurisprudence in place since 1986, i.e. M.C Mehta v. UOI, M.C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana and, through various other judgments, the Supreme Court has recognised the right to clean environment along with right to clean air, water and soil free from pollution which is absolutely necessary for the enjoyment of life [2] Any disturbance with these basic elements of environment would amount to violation of Article 21. It also establishes duty of the state to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Although right to clean environment has existed, by recognizing the right against climate change it shall compel the states to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development.

Additionally, the judgment held the inability to adapt climate change will violate the right to life as well as the right to equality. For Instance: The native tribes and communities residing on Nicobar Island face a significant danger of losing not only their houses but also their culture, which is closely linked to the areas they call home and the resources found there. When compared to urban people, indigenous groups typically lead traditional lives and have various types of dependence on the land. Climate change may have an impact on customary activities like hunting and fishing, which could alter people's source of food. Furthermore, an indigenous community's relationship with nature could be influenced by their religion or culture. Losses could be irreversible if their homes are destroyed or their fields and forests are destroyed. Consequently, when sea levels rise and oceanic issues arise, residents of the Nicobar Islands will be at a disadvantage relative to residents of Madhya Pradesh. Climate change may also have an effect on the constitutional provision of the right to equality in several other ways.

Fiduciary Duty of the Court

The court has a fiduciary duty to implement international agreements and treaties that India has signed. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Supreme Court cited numerous cases where court gave effect to international instruments which was signed by India such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [3]. In these judgments, the Supreme Court gave regards to these international conventions and norms for construing domestic law. However, it is also the duty of the court to protect the right to life and liberty of the people. Right to clean and healthy environment is also the fundamental right recognised by the Supreme Court itself. The courts need to ensure proper implementation of the same. However, if people are facing adverse impact of climate change, it is also the duty of the court to question the government and commercial ventures about their measures to mitigate the issue.

Therefore, Indian Supreme Court recognising right against climate change, as a distinct fundamental and human right is a significant step towards environmental protection. Further, the Indian Supreme Court has done a balancing act between economic growth and the environment conservation. They have in a very nuanced way safeguarded biodiversity in mitigating the impact of Climate Change. It has also ensured that India’s International commitment is not adversely affected by the Judgment of the Court. Four-way balance between India’s International commitments, conservation of environment, India’s growth, and protection of the Great Indian Bustard has been consummated.

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition of the right against climate change by the Indian Supreme Court marks a crucial step towards environmental protection and human rights, and therefore, is a worthy leap. This acknowledgment creates an obligation on the government to take effective measures to address the adverse effects of climate change, safeguarding not just the environment but also fundamental rights like the right to life and equality. The recent judgment underscores the interconnectedness of environmental conservation, sustainable development and human well-being.

Moreover, India's commitment to international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement demonstrates a global responsibility towards mitigating climate change. The Court recognised the defence of the Union of India that India needs to meet its international obligations under Treaties. The court's role in ensuring adherence to these commitments reinforces the accountability of governments in tackling climate-related challenges.

Manifest in what the Supreme Court has opined in the recent judgment, what would be interesting to observe in the future, is how the Supreme Court responds to class actions or communities collectively coming together on the issue to Climate Change against both the state and/or private enterprise. Will it carry forward the permutation of fine equilibrium and equipoise or optimally extol the Right to life?

[This piece was written exclusively for ETEnergyworld by Jatinder (Jay) Cheema. He is a Projects, Energy, and Natural Resources Lawyer and author of “Climate Change – The Policy, Law, and Practice published by Thomson Reuters (2024)]


References:
[1] M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024, March 21, SC
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20754/20754_2019_1_25_51677_Judgement_21-Mar-2024.pdf

[2] Ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-clean-environment-m-c-mehta-v-union-of-
india/#M_C_Mehta_v_Union_of_India_1986 (April 23, 2024)

[3] M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024, March 21, SC
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20754/20754_2019_1_25_51677_Judgement_21-Mar-2024.pdf