On 5 April 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued a ground-breaking judgment in M. K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. It is a judgment that seemingly has it all, as it recognises the need to balance competing environmental interests (e.g. biodiversity versus climate change), the impacts of climate change on human rights, and the inequal burden borne by Indigenous people and women.
Endangered Birds and Climate Change: The Supreme Court of India’s First Ruling
The case centres around the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, two bird species on the brink of extinction. Especially the Great Indian Bustard is of concern in this case. The Great Indian Bustard is facing a multitude of threats. Habitat loss due to human population expansion and infrastructure development is a major concern. Additionally, pollution, climate change, and collisions with overhead power lines have impacted their populations.
The conservationist M K Ranjisinh sought protection for the two bird species, causing him to file the writ petition. On 19 April 2021, the Supreme Court of India imposed a restriction on the setting up of overhead transmission lines. Specifically, the Supreme Court of India required ‘bird diverters’ to be installed in areas where overhead power lines pre-existed the ruling. Where feasible new power lines would have to go underground.
However, respondents in the case, including the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, applied to the Supreme Court of India to modify its 2021 order. They argued that undergrounding high-voltage power lines is technically impractical. As per India’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement, among others, the country is required to reduce its carbon footprint by transitioning to renewable energy sources. Therefore, an over-reliance on underground cables would hinder the energy transition, potentially leading to increased dependence on fossil fuels and further environmental damage.
On 19 January 2024, the Supreme Court of India ordered for a comprehensive status report to be filed by the respondents, detailing their proposed way forward, balancing the preservation of the Great Indian Bustard and India’s international climate commitments. The subsequent status report filed by the Union of India included several arguments, including that (i) the Great Indian Bustard’s numbers began reducing in the 1960s, which preceded the construction of the transmission lines; (ii) laying high or low voltage lines underground is not feasible; (iii) India has numerous international commitments to increase renewable sources of energy; (iv) comprehensive steps towards conservation and protection of the Great Indian Bustard are already implemented; and (v) the original direction imposed by the Supreme Court would not have the intended result of conservation of the Great Indian Bustard.
The Court’s Revised Decision (April 2024)
In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India modified its original judgment. The Court took note of India’s international environmental obligations. Among these obligations are India’s Paris Agreement commitment to achieve 50% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy resources by 2030. India also made commitments with regard to investment in sectors and areas vulnerable to climate change, as well as the dissemination of green technology.
In developing its argument, the Supreme Court of India refers to the need of renewable energy sources for a just transition: “By shifting towards renewable energy sources, India enhances its energy security, reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and mitigating the risks associated with energy scarcity”.
The Court continues to develop a right against the adverse effects of climate change. Although this right is not expressly included in any of India’s legislation, the Court refers to interpretations of the Constitution employed in previous case law. Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognises the right to life and personal liberty, whereas Article 14 holds that all persons are equal before the law. The Supreme Court also refers to specific provisions of the Constitution that recognise “the importance of the natural world”. These include Article 48A, which obligates the State to protect and improve the environment, and clause (g) of Article 51A, which stipulates that every citizen of India also has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment. Previous case law (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana) already established that Articles 48A and 51A(g) should be interpreted in light of Article 21, as follows: “Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for ‘life’, would be hazardous to ‘life’ within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution”.
The Supreme Court of India also refers to the inequality arising from or exacerbated by climate change, particularly relating to Indigenous people who depend on the land for their livelihood and culture, as well as women, who are disproportionately affected by adverse climate change. From this, it follows that climate change may impact the Article 14 right to equality under the Constitution of India. However, what has yet to be expressed in any case law in India, is a person’s right against the adverse effects of climate change. Through its analysis of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court argues that there exists a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
According to Parul Kumar, PhD candidate at KU Leuven and lawyer: “This is a historic ruling from India. India already has long-standing environmental jurisprudence establishing the right to a clean environment within the constitutional framework (particularly under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to life). But this is the first time that the Supreme Court has engaged so comprehensively and directly with climate change and read the right against the adverse impact of climate change as a fundamental right under not just Article 21 but also Article 14 (the fundamental right to equality). This will be a big boost to future climate litigation cases in India, since it will allow litigants to now directly address climate change in future litigation seeking action against the adverse impacts of climate change.”
To highlight the global trend in recognising this right, the Supreme Court of India also refers to recent judgments across the globe, such as Urgenda in the Netherlands, Sacchi against Argentina, and Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business in New Zealand. The latter two cases were unsuccessful, but still, the Court drew inspiration from statements made in the judgments. According to the Court, these previous judgments “highlight global trends in climate change litigation”.
Overall, the Court concludes that it is “imperative” to strike a balance between the conservation of endangered species and protecting people against climate change. Neither goal can be sacrificed on account of the other. By forcing power transmission lines to go underground, the Court now recognises that this would harm the environment and by extension even other species. The solution set by the Court is the establishment of a committee of scientists and experts. The committee will look into which areas are suitable for undergrounding of power lines, which the Court thinks is a more nuanced approach. The committee can also identify other measures as required.
Comments