By: Saksham Gadia and Lavanya Malani
The authors are final-year law students at Jindal Global Law School and can be reached at sakshamgadia@gmail.com and lavanyamalani123@gmail.com.
Image Source: Supreme Court Observer
Introduction
Through the prism of climate justice, the Supreme Court of India in the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India, 2024 has taken a monumental step by categorically recognising the right to climate justice as a cogent of the right to life as conceptualised under Article 21 of the constitution. court emphasised the necessity for the Indian government to implement proactive measures in the fight against climate change, with a particular focus on encouraging sustainable development and renewable energy referencing the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement as the mother document. This piece aims to provide a thorough analysis of the case's background, legal ramifications, and potential impact on India's environmental policy. It will emphasise the importance of sustainable development and the need for aggressive climate measures to be enforced. The judgment came to be when a writ petition under Article 32 was filed by M.K. Ranjitsinh, wherein they prayed the court to issue directions for the executive to preserve the endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The GIB is at risk of extinction because of causes such as climate change and the presence of overhead electricity wires. The court-imposed limitations on the placement of overhead transmission lines throughout approximately 99,000 square kilometres which were severely affecting the habitat of GIB. The court also ordered that these cables be converted to underground lines in the relevant locations. The court reevaluated this decision in consideration of India's renewable energy obligations as outlined in the Paris Agreement. The court confirmed the connection between a healthy environment and efforts to mitigate climate change.
Environmental Jurisprudence
The court’s position of linking climate justice with the constitutional right to life is a significant advancement in environmental law, demonstrating a crucial shift in the court's approach to addressing climate change and protecting the environment. This expansive interpretation of Article 21 is not completely novel; it is based on a sequence of significant judgments where the Supreme Court has gradually broadened the scope of the right to life to include environmental aspects. In the case of (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991), the Court determined that the right to life encompasses the right to access uncontaminated water and air, which are crucial for maintaining good health. Moreover, in the (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1988) (Taj Trapezium case), the Court emphasised the need to safeguard the environment to maintain historical monuments and, consequently, safeguard cultural heritage. This connection was directly linked to the right to life.
Nevertheless, this recent decision takes an additional step by expressly including climate justice in the constitutional structure, so requiring the government to implement proactive actions to address climate change. This directive not only mandates the authorities to prioritise efforts in reducing the effects of climate change but also to aggressively advocate for the adoption of renewable energy and sustainable development methods. This dictum has the potential to strongly influence policy changes, forcing the government to reconcile its plans for development with aims for environmental sustainability. The previous impact of such a court’s order can be seen in the introduction of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 which came as a consequence of the seminal jurisprudence of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997. The verdict also prompts significant enquiries over the equilibrium between development and environmental preservation. India, as a growing country, confronts the simultaneous task of expediting economic expansion while guaranteeing environmental sustainability. This verdict imposes an additional obligation on the government to align its developmental programs with environmental goals, which was already vehemently noted by the court to be two oaks on a single boat in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 1994.
Tryst with Environmental Justice
The Court's focus on environmental justice highlights the notion of intergenerational equity, which asserts that the present generation has a responsibility to safeguard the environment for future generations. (Weiss, 1988) The inclusion of this principle in the Supreme Court's verdict strengthens India's dedication to sustainable development, as it aligns with other international environmental treaties and declarations, asserting a clear fulfilment of Article 51(g)’s mandate. Moreover, the ruling’s emphasis on climate justice has a profound socio-economic dimension. Climate change disproportionately affects the most vulnerable sections of society, including the poor, marginalized communities, and indigenous peoples. (Holifield et al., 2017) By embedding climate justice within the right to life, the Supreme Court has underscored the necessity for inclusive and equitable environmental policies that address the needs of these vulnerable groups. This perspective aligns with the principles of environmental justice, specifically the principles of recognition paradigm, which advocate for fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in environmental governance, regardless of their socio-economic status. (Holifield et al., 2017) This ruling also reflects a shift towards a rights-based approach to environmental protection, recognizing that a healthy environment is a prerequisite for the realization of other fundamental human rights, such as the right to health, food, and water.
Problems in Practical Application
India's performance in enforcing environmental regulations has been inconsistent, with several cases where well-meaning legislation has failed owing to a lack of execution, bureaucratic inaction, and the influence of vested interests. For instance, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was created to address environmental conflicts and enforce legislative protections concerning the environment, has frequently had difficulties in guaranteeing adherence to its directives. (Dixit & Rosencranz, 2019) This underlines a crucial disparity between legal judgements and actual circumstances. To implement this significant ruling, the Supreme Court's instruction necessitates the establishment of strong institutional structures, sufficient resources, and unwavering political determination. Thus, a comprehensive effort from the state to alter its policies, mandates and standard operating procedures is quintessential in this regard.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision signifies substantial progress in the field of environmental law. This statement highlights the crucial connection between fundamental rights and environmental conservation, emphasising the necessity for proactive and inclusive environmental policy. Although the verdict establishes a significant legal precedent, its effective execution will rely on the government's dedication to implementing it and resolving the fundamental socio-economic and institutional obstacles. This ruling signifies a crucial juncture in India's legal and environmental terrain, laying the groundwork for a more salubrious and enduring future. However, fully harnessing the benefits of this decision necessitates continuous endeavours, strong institutional backing, and proactive civic participation to guarantee that the fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment are protected for all individuals.
Bibliography
Dixit, R., & Rosencranz, A. (2019). Evaluating The National Green Tribunal After Nearly A Decade: Ten Challenges To Overcome. NLIU Law Review, IX(I).
Holifield, R., Chakraborty, J., & Walker, G. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice. Routledge.
M.K. Ranjitsinh and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0274 (2024).
MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1115 (1988).
Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1) SCC 598 (1991).
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors. 5 SCC 647 (1996).
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR SC 3011 (1997).
Weiss, E. B. (1988). In Fairness to Future Generations. Hotei Publishing.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not reflect the views or opinions of Diplomania or its members.
Comments