The case of
M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India brought before the Supreme Court
epitomizes the convergence of environmental conservation, climate policy, and
human rights. The petitioners, advocating for the protection of endangered
species like the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), highlighted the role of
transmission lines in jeopardizing vulnerable avian populations. This article
examines the case's arguments, judgments, and broader implications, particularly
as they pertain to the intersection of renewable energy development, India's
climate commitments, and constitutional rights. Through this analysis, we aim to
unpack the nuanced balance the Court struck in its rulings and elucidate the
evolving legal recognition of the "right to be free from adverse effects of
climate change."
Introduction
In
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court of India
addressed an unprecedented environmental dilemma: the conflict between
safeguarding endangered species and advancing renewable energy initiatives
critical to India's climate obligations. The case foregrounded not only India's
commitment to environmental protection under Article 48A of the Indian
Constitution but also recognized the constitutional mandate of Article 21 to
uphold the right to life. This analysis seeks to contextualize the Court's
ruling within the broader trajectory of climate change litigation, examining its
implications for India's environmental policy and the advancement of a distinct
right against climate change's adverse impacts.
Case Background
The petitioners, led by conservationist M.K. Ranjitsinh, sought the Court's
intervention to protect the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and the
Lesser Florican, species threatened by the proliferation of power lines in their
natural habitats. With only an estimated 125 GIBs left in Rajasthan, the
petitioners contended that high-voltage power lines posed fatal threats to these
ground-nesting birds. They invoked Article 32 to call for urgent measures,
including relocating overhead transmission lines underground in critical
habitats, installing bird diverters, and initiating a comprehensive conservation
strategy.
The petitioners' demands underscored India's responsibility under the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, which mandates the preservation of endangered species
and their habitats. Additionally, the case highlighted India's international
commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
and the Paris Agreement, both of which reinforce India's obligation to adopt
renewable energy solutions to mitigate climate impacts.
Judicial Analysis and Observations
The Right to a Healthy Environment and Climate Justice
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in delivering the judgment, emphasized the
foundational right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21. The
Court recognized that this right encompasses a broader "right to be free from
adverse effects of climate change," thus advancing India's evolving
jurisprudence on environmental and climate rights.
The Court's reliance on Articles 14 and 21 reflects its acknowledgment of the
inherent link between environmental degradation and fundamental rights. Drawing
from precedent in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) and Virender Gaur v. State of
Haryana (1995), Justice Chandrachud affirmed that environmental degradation,
whether due to habitat encroachment or climate impacts, violates the right to
life, dignified existence, and equality. The Court further referenced Article
48A, which mandates the State's proactive role in environmental protection, and
Article 51A(g), which entrusts citizens with the duty to safeguard biodiversity
and the natural environment.
International Law and India's Climate Obligations
The Court's observations also acknowledged India's international environmental
obligations, specifically the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement, which
underscore India's commitment to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainable
energy sources. India's Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC),
submitted in 2015, set ambitious targets to transition from fossil fuels to
renewable energy by 2030. These commitments resonate with Article 3 of the
UNFCCC, which calls for equitable climate measures and emphasizes the importance
of protecting vulnerable communities from climate change.
Justice Chandrachud underscored that the dual objective of conserving the GIB
and promoting renewable energy should be approached as a symbiotic rather than
adversarial undertaking. The Court's order to reconsider overhead power
transmission in critical habitats sought to mitigate threats to the GIB while
safeguarding India's renewable energy trajectory, which is crucial to its
climate objectives.
The Ruling and Its Balancing Act
In its order, the Court noted the technical, environmental, and economic
challenges posed by mandating the undergrounding of all power lines across the
GIB's expansive habitat. It directed the establishment of an Expert Committee to
examine viable conservation strategies, allowing experts to determine
region-specific approaches to wildlife preservation while advancing renewable
energy infrastructure.
The Directive and Role of the Expert Committee
The Committee, composed of conservation experts and representatives from India's
renewable energy sector, was tasked with:
- Identifying areas where power lines could feasibly be relocated underground;
- Assessing the impact of bird diverters on existing power lines to mitigate avian mortality;
- Examining international conservation models, such as those for the Houbara Bustard, to adapt successful practices to the Indian context.
The Court's directive demonstrated judicial deference to scientific expertise, an approach that seeks to balance judicial intervention with environmental policy, underscoring the recognition of climate change as an existential threat demanding pragmatic responses.
Comparative Climate Change Litigation
The ruling in M.K. Ranjitsinh aligns with recent global trends in climate change
litigation, where courts have increasingly acknowledged the nexus between human
rights and climate action. Noteworthy cases include State of the
Netherlands
v. Urgenda Foundation and Sacchi v. Argentina, where courts recognized state
obligations to reduce greenhouse emissions and protect citizens from climate
change impacts. By invoking Articles 14 and 21 to assert a right to be free from
climate harms, the Indian Supreme Court's judgment reflects a growing
recognition of environmental justice and climate accountability.
Conclusion
The M.K. Ranjitsinh case exemplifies a legal milestone, embedding the
right to a climate-stable environment within India's constitutional framework.
By affirming the right to be free from adverse climate impacts, the Court
underscored the State's duty to harmonize environmental conservation with
sustainable development. This precedent extends beyond India's borders,
contributing to the global movement toward environmental justice and affirming
the judiciary's role as a steward of intergenerational equity.
The Court's approach acknowledges that combating climate change is not merely a
policy objective but a legal imperative intrinsic to the protection of
fundamental rights. As the adverse effects of climate change intensify, the
judiciary's role in reinforcing the constitutional and moral imperatives of
climate justice will remain pivotal.
Please Drop Your Comments