Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in MK Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others held a historic decision to recognise the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change as a new fundamental right in the trajectory of India’s Constitutional framework.
There have been increasing calls for environmental justice and to alleviate the detrimental impacts of climate-crisis, a much-felt right against climate change became necessary. In this regard, the apex court made a profound declaration to establish the right against climate change as a fundamental right.
The recognition of the climate change jurisprudence as a new constitutional right intricately linked with fundamental rights like the right to a clean and healthy environment which is part of the right to life, marks a significant milestone in environmental policy and human rights.
By building upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the court asserted the importance of enforcing the right to life to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change, thereby, adding a more nuanced dimension to the right to life.
Pioneering Judgement
The case MK Ranjitsinh and Others v Union of India and Others (2024) marks a crucial step towards the notable evolution of environmental litigation as it accords environmental rights as both absolute and fundamental as well as offers a constitutional protection from the negative impacts of climate change under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The impetus for the case pertains to the conservation of two critically endangered birds-the Great India Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican threatened by the overhead transmission lines crisscrossing their habitat.
Revisiting the earlier order that prohibited the setting up of these lines, the court noted that the laying of underground lines was not feasible and was unable, in any event, to carry the required power.
The court expressed concerns in seeking the potential balance of conservation of species and for the efficient India’s renewable energy portfolio. The habitat region of the species was conceivable enough for the solar and wind energy potential which would facilitate India’s commitments to the reduce usage of fossil fuels and advancing towards the use of cleaner energy.
Despite the factual grid of the case, the court upheld the relevance of climate protection primarily that alludes to global environmental conservation goals as a part of India’s climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change (UNFCC), owing to people’s access to clean energy.
By reflecting upon these reasons, the court deemed it necessary to reconstruct its previous order. Consequently, the court extensively emphasised the issue of climate justice and expressly created a new justiciable right.
Therefore, the court’s recognition of climate jurisprudence, individual protection and linkage between climate change and human rights, ensuring the overall well-being of the citizens elevates this judgement as far-reaching.
Marginalised Community: Re-affirming Right to Equality
The court asserted that the right to lifeand the right to equalityintertwined with climate justice cannot be fully realised without a clean, stable and sustainable environment.
Notably, the biggest burden of climate crisis disproportionately falls upon the marginalised populations existing in the society who have restricted capacity to adapt to the living conditions propelled by climate change.
They are the ones who are least able to recover from and prepare against the threats spurred by severe climatic conditions because of the deficient resources to make alterations. Consequently, they turn out to suffer the most and do without the right to equality.
For instance- The natural phenomenon like flooding compels the poorer communities to be displaced from their homes and move themselves to a safer place but their financial inability hinders them. As a result, they face acute issues like food and water shortages due to environmental degradation encroaching upon their right to life and equality. Eventually, their right to health also ends up being violated because of numerous factors like air pollution, rising temperatures, food supplies, water and so on.
Therefore, the court mandated the State’s duty to ensure they accommodate against climatic conditions with access to constitutional rights – the right to equality for a better inclusive society.
Article 48A and 51A(g) accorded greater inviolability
The most telling element of this ruling is that it rendered otherwise non-enforceable duties actionable before the court of law. Article 48A states that “the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment; these duties are merely directive per se as incorporated in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Likewise, Article 51A(g) outlines it is the duty of every citizen to protect and enhance the environment, these duties are not justiciable. Since fundamental rights cannot be waived off by any person and warrant access to restore them if infringed, the court intertwined these complementary duties as enforceable rights, thereby expanding the scope of Article 21.
Drawbacks
As this ruling establishes a connection between climate change and fundamental rights, this suggests overarching repercussions for the prospect of environmental protection. Considering the climate jurisprudence is a global phenomenon, it is tremendously difficult for a state to guarantee every individual’s protection from the risks posed by climate change. The reasoning mirrors some or the other way at least, to a certain extent, people suffer from the vagaries of climate change and therefore, it appears to have become difficult for courts to be able to ensure protection to every member. Effectively, the court would fail to provide effective remedies. As a result, the sanctity of this newly recognized constitutional right will be compromised. In addition to that, it would render the integrity of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and end up failing to maintain the public trust, heralding a dangerous precedent.
Moreover, it raises critical questions about its implications for future legislative interpretations as it leaves room for future clarification without any explicit substantive and procedural legislation in the legal landscape.
In order to operationalise it effectively, there arises a need to reflect on the broad interpretations of it, particularly in areas of administration and practical enforceability.
Conclusion
The recognition of climate change as a fundamental right intertwined with the right to life and equality has garnered significant attention in environmental litigation and human rights in India’s legal landscape. This significant ruling not only paves the way for new constitutional rights but also ensures the people and nature are equally prioritised.
India took a worthy leap in safeguarding the environmental rights concerning state obligations and marginalized communities’ protections. This pivotal ruling not merely lays the foundation for a sustainable future but it enlightens us with a stark reminder of our ethical responsibility towards attaining environmental protection.
However, it eloquently notes the urgency to bring forward the broader interpretations with absolute legislation to operationalise it effectively. In that view, it requires concrete efforts from executives, stakeholders and policymakers for its proper implementation.
With a view to reflecting upon the pre-defined fundamental duties, it reminds us to remain committed to a better sustainable future so that it can be said aloud- climate justice is a lived reality for all.
Author(s) Name: Kriti Tyagi (SVKM’S Jitendra Chauhan College of Law , Mumbai University)
