In an era marked by unprecedented environmental challenges, the recognition of the right against climate change as part of fundamental rights heralds a significant milestone in legal and societal landscapes worldwide. As nations grapple with the far-reaching consequences of climate change, the acknowledgment of this right underscores the imperative for collective action to safeguard the planet and ensure intergenerational equity.Fundamental rights, the cornerstone of democratic societies, traditionally encompass liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and equality before the law. However, the evolving nature of global challenges necessitates a broader interpretation of fundamental rights to encompass environmental protection, including the right against climate change.The urgency of addressing climate change is underscored by its multifaceted impacts, ranging from extreme weather events to biodiversity loss, and threatens the very fabric of human existence. Recognizing the right against climate change empowers individuals and communities to hold governments and corporations accountable for their environmental stewardship, ensuring that policies and practices prioritize sustainability and resilience.The inclusion of the right against climate change in fundamental rights signifies a paradigm shift in legal and policy frameworks, emphasizing the interconnectedness of environmental protection and human rights. It acknowledges that environmental degradation disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, exacerbating inequalities and undermining the principles of justice and fairness. The recognition of this right fosters a sense of collective responsibility and intergenerational solidarity, acknowledging that actions taken today will shape the world for future generations. By enshrining the right against climate change, societies commit to upholding the principles of sustainability, equity, and justice, laying the groundwork for a more resilient and harmonious future. Empowering communities and marginalized groups to participate in decision-making processes fosters inclusive and sustainable development, amplifying their voices in shaping climate policies and initiatives. Civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector also play pivotal roles in driving innovation, raising awareness, and mobilizing resources to address climate change effectively.


The Supreme Court’s statement likely emphasizes the recognition of a fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right encompasses the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, as it directly impacts people’s well-being and quality of life. By invoking Article 14, which ensures the law, the court may be highlighting the need for equitable protection and mitigation efforts against climate change impacts for all individuals.


BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: The case of MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India revolves around the conservation of wildlife and the protection of natural habitats. MK Ranjitsinh, a prominent conservationist, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India against the Union of India. The PIL raised concerns about the rampant destruction of forests and wildlife habitats due to various developmental projects across the country.

Ranjitsinh argued that these projects were being undertaken without proper environmental impact assessments or adherence to wildlife protection laws. He contended that such unchecked development was leading to irreversible damage to the ecological balance and endangering the survival of numerous species of flora and fauna.


The MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India case revolves around wildlife conservation and protection.

1972: India enacts the Wildlife Protection Act to safeguard endangered species and habitats.

1991: The case begins with a petition by MK Ranjitsinh challenging the legality of the government’s order to permit the killing of certain animals.

1995: The Supreme Court delivers a significant judgment, emphasizing the importance of protecting wildlife and their habitats.

2006: The court reiterates its stance on wildlife conservation, issuing directives to enforce the Wildlife Protection Act strictly.

2013: The case continues with further hearings and discussions on various aspects of wildlife conservation. Present: The case might still be ongoing, with periodic updates and rulings from the courts.


The case involved a dispute over the classification of certain lands as “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The petitioners were landowners challenging the classification of their lands as forest.

They contended that their lands were not covered by the Act and therefore, should not be subjected to its provisions.

The Union of India argued that the lands in question fulfilled the criteria for classification as forest under the Act

The dispute primarily revolved around the interpretation of what constitutes “forest” under the Act.

The case raised important legal questions regarding the scope and application of environmental laws in India.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case had significant implications for land use and conservation policies in the country.


The case of Mk Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India involved multiple petitions related to conservation issues

Introduction: The petition was filed by Mk Ranjitsinh and others against the Union of India concerning various aspects of wildlife conservation and environmental protection.

Violation of Wildlife Laws: The petition alleged that there were widespread violations of wildlife laws, particularly concerning the protection of endangered species and their habitats.

Role of Government Agencies: It raised concerns about the role of government agencies responsible for enforcing wildlife protection laws and their failure to effectively address issues such as poaching, habitat  destruction, and illegal trade in wildlife.

Lack of Enforcement: The petition highlighted instances where despite existing laws and regulations, there was a lack of enforcement leading to continued threats to wildlife species and their habitats.

Need for Judicial Intervention: It argued for the necessity of judicial intervention to ensure proper enforcement of wildlife laws and to address the challenges facing conservation efforts in the country.

Conservation Strategies: The petition may have also called for the formulation and implementation of comprehensive conservation strategies to safeguard the biodiversity of the nation.

Protection of Habitats: It likely emphasized the importance of protecting critical habitats for wildlife species, including national parks, sanctuaries, and other protected areas.

Community Participation: The petition might have advocated for greater involvement of local communities in conservation efforts, recognizing their role as stakeholders in wildlife management.

Overall, the case highlighted the urgent need for stronger enforcement of wildlife laws, better conservation strategies, and increased efforts to protect endangered species and their habitats in India.


The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case of MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. Union of India addressed several critical aspects related to rights against climate change:likely delves into legal frameworks, international agreements, and constitutional provisions supporting environmental protection, urging robust policies and actions to combat climate change. 

(1)Recognition of Fundamental Right: The judgment acknowledged the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment as encompassing protection against climate change impacts.

(2)Expansion of Article 14 and 21: The judgment expanded the scope of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution to include protection from the adverse effects of climate change, thereby enhancing environmental rights.

(3)Correlation of DPSP and FR: It highlighted the correlation between the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights (FR), emphasizing the state’s obligation to enact laws and policies to mitigate climate change and protect the environment in line with the principles outlined in the Constitution.

(4)Changes in Prior Order: The judgment likely overturned or modified previous orders or interpretations to align with the evolving understanding of environmental rights and climate change impacts.

(5)Directions to Experts: The judgment likely provided directives to engage experts and stakeholders in formulating strategies and policies to address climate change effectively, ensuring informed decision-making and implementation.

Overall, the judgment represents a significant step forward in recognizing and safeguarding rights against climate change, highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental protection, fundamental rights, and state obligations.


The case of MK Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India is significant for several reasons:

Protection of Wildlife: The judgment likely involves wildlife conservation or protection measures. It might establish legal precedents or guidelines for protecting endangered species or habitats.

Environmental Law: The case might involve environmental issues, such as pollution control, habitat preservation, or sustainable development. The judgment could set standards or regulations for industries to follow, ensuring environmental sustainability.

Government Accountability: It could address issues related to government policies or actions concerning wildlife conservation or environmental protection. The judgment might hold the government accountable for its actions or inactions in safeguarding natural resources.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This case might be a PIL, where individuals or organizations advocate for a public cause related to wildlife or environmental conservation. Such cases often lead to landmark judgments that have far-reaching implications for society.

Legal Precedents: The judgment could establish legal precedents or interpretations of existing laws that shape future cases related to wildlife conservation or environmental protection. It may clarify ambiguous legal provisions or define the scope of certain laws.

Overall, the importance of this judgment lies in its potential to advance the cause of wildlife conservation, environmental protection, and sustainable development, while also upholding the principles of justice and accountability.


In conclusion, the recognition of the Right against climate change as part of fundamental rights represents a defining moment in the quest for environmental justice and sustainability. By acknowledging the intrinsic link between environmental protection and human rights, societies pave the way for transformative change, ensuring that future generations inherit a planet that is habitable, resilient, and equitable. As we navigate the complexities of the climate crisis, let us uphold the right against climate change as a beacon of hope and a catalyst for meaningful action towards a more just and sustainable world.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *