ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgement in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others (2024) represents a pivotal moment in the realm of constitutional climate litigation. The judgement introduces a novel constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, derived from Articles 21 (right to life) and 14 (right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. This development is significant in shaping the legal framework for climate protection in India. The judgement not only aligns with global climate commitments but also sets a precedent for integrating human rights considerations into climate litigation. Despite its groundbreaking nature, the decision has faced criticisms regarding its anthropocentric perspective and potential gaps in practical implementation.
KEYWORDS: Climate, Constitutional, Rights, Precedent.
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court’s ruling in M.K. Ranjitsinh represents a landmark decision that fundamentally reshapes the landscape of climate litigation in India. This case originated from a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which sought the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) from the adverse impacts of climate change and overhead transmission lines.
The judgement is significant as it establishes a new constitutional right to protection from climate change’s adverse effects. This right is grounded in the fundamental rights to life and equality, thus intertwining climate protection with core human rights principles. This development signals a progressive shift in constitutional jurisprudence and sets a new precedent for climate-related legal claims.
CASE BACKGROUND AND FACTS
The case was initiated by M.K. Ranjitsinh, who sought judicial intervention to protect the Great Indian Bustard from the threats posed by climate change and overhead power lines. The initial findings of the Court highlighted the critical state of the GIB and the potential detrimental effects of ongoing infrastructure projects on its habitat.
On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court issued interim directions to halt the installation of new overhead transmission lines in the GIB’s habitat and mandated the conversion of existing lines to underground cables. This interim order aimed to mitigate immediate threats to the bird’s survival while the broader issues of climate change were addressed.
The core issue in the case centered on balancing environmental conservation with the necessity of infrastructure development. The Court examined the impact of overhead transmission lines on the GIB’s habitat and evaluated whether these infrastructure projects could be modified to prevent further harm.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s judgement introduces a new constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. This right is derived from Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, effectively creating a linkage between environmental protection and fundamental human rights.
The Court’s ruling integrates the new climate right with existing fundamental rights, notably the right to life (Article 21) and the right to equality (Article 14). By doing so, it reinforces the idea that climate protection is an essential component of the right to a clean and healthy environment and that vulnerable communities’ unequal exposure to climate risks implicates their right to equality.
In its reasoning, the Court highlighted India’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement and the need for a robust domestic legal framework to address climate change. The judgement reflects a nuanced understanding of the intersection between constitutional rights and environmental obligations, setting a precedent for future climate litigation.
The Court constituted an Expert Committee to assess the feasibility of underground power lines and develop measures to protect the GIB. This move underscores the Court’s commitment to informed decision-making and the integration of scientific expertise in resolving complex environmental issues.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The judgement represents a major advancement in climate litigation in India, providing a constitutional basis for future claims related to climate change. It establishes a precedent for integrating climate considerations into fundamental rights, potentially influencing similar cases in the future.
By framing climate protection as a constitutional right, the Court’s decision may inspire broader environmental litigation and influence judicial approaches to climate-related claims. It sets a benchmark for evaluating the legality of policies and projects with environmental implications.
The Court’s recognition of the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable communities highlights a critical aspect of climate justice. The judgement underscores the need for policies and legal frameworks that address the specific needs of these communities and ensure equitable protection.
CRITICISMS AND LIMITATIONS
Anthropocentric Bias in the Judgement
The judgement has been criticized for its anthropocentric approach, which prioritizes human interests over ecological considerations. Critics argue that the Court’s focus on the economic benefits of renewable energy projects may undermine broader environmental and biodiversity goals.
Overlooked Ecological and Human Rights Impacts
The judgement’s emphasis on transitioning to solar energy and removing restrictions on overhead power lines has been seen as overlooking the potential negative impacts on both ecosystems and human rights. The Court’s analysis may benefit from a more comprehensive consideration of these factors.
Legal and Practical Challenges in Implementation
There are concerns about the practical implementation of the Court’s directives, particularly regarding the conversion of overhead power lines and the protection of endangered species. The feasibility of these measures and their effectiveness in addressing climate change remain points of contention.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The judgement can be compared to climate litigation in other jurisdictions, particularly in the Global North, where comprehensive climate legislation and ambitious targets often frame legal claims. The Indian case reflects a unique approach influenced by domestic legal and environmental contexts.
Examining climate litigation strategies and outcomes in other countries provides valuable insights into potential approaches for enhancing climate protection and addressing legal challenges. Lessons from international cases can inform future legal and policy developments in India.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The judgement highlights the necessity for integrated climate legislation in India to address the fragmented nature of current policies. A comprehensive legal framework would enhance transparency, accountability, and effectiveness in combating climate change.
Future litigation and judicial decisions should focus on strengthening the protection of climate rights and ensuring that legal frameworks adequately address both mitigation and adaptation needs. This includes refining judicial approaches to balance environmental and developmental goals.
Recommendations for policy and legal reform should focus on developing holistic climate legislation, improving regulatory mechanisms, and enhancing the integration of scientific research into legal decision-making. This approach would support more effective climate action and rights protection.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh marks a significant advancement in constitutional climate litigation, establishing a new right against climate change. The judgement’s integration of this right with fundamental rights reflects a progressive approach to environmental protection.
The judgement sets a precedent for future climate litigation and highlights the need for comprehensive climate legislation. It underscores the importance of balancing environmental protection with developmental goals and addressing the needs of vulnerable communities.
As India navigates its path toward climate resilience, the judgement offers a critical opportunity to advance climate rights and legal protections. Ongoing efforts should focus on translating judicial directives into effective policies and ensuring that the new climate right contributes to meaningful change.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
Q What is the significance of the M.K. Ranjitsinh judgement?
Ans: It introduces a new constitutional right to be free from climate change effects, derived from Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Q How does the judgement impact future climate litigation in India?
Ans: It sets a precedent for integrating climate protection into fundamental rights, potentially influencing future legal claims and environmental policies.
Q What criticisms have been raised about the M.K. Ranjitsinh decision?
Ans: Critics argue that the judgement has an anthropocentric bias and overlooks broader ecological and human rights impacts.
