The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that people should be protected from the harmful effects of climate change. According to the ruling environmental rights are covered by two important articles of the Constitution: Article 14, which is about equality, and Article 21, which is about the right to life and freedom.
- Judgment on Endangered Species: In a case about saving the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court made this decision.
- Climate Change and Human Rights: The Court highlighted how climate change affects human rights. They emphasized that it’s crucial for governments to consider people’s rights when dealing with climate issues.
- Protection for Endangered Birds: The Supreme Court’s decision was in response to a petition asking for protection for the GIB and another endangered bird, the Lesser Florican.
- Action Plan for Bird Protection: The petition asked for urgent actions to save the GIB. This included installing bird diverters, stopping new projects, and removing power lines, wind turbines, and solar panels from important bird habitats.
Supreme Court’s Decision on Power Lines in GIB Habitat
- Modification Request: In March 2023, the Supreme Court reviewed a plea to change its April 19, 2021, order limiting overhead power lines in the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) habitat.
- Reasons for Change: The Ministries of Power, Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and New and Renewable Energy sought modification, citing harm to the power sector and feasibility issues.
- Court’s Ruling: The Court adjusted its previous order, directing experts to assess underground power line feasibility based on terrain and population density.
- Reasoning: Acknowledging the impracticality of the original order, the Court endorsed the government’s conservation efforts for the GIB.
- Climate Change Considerations: The Court emphasized India’s duty to combat climate change and protect the environment, aligning with citizens’ rights to life and liberty.
Interpretation of Article 21 by Courts
- Historical Perspective: The Supreme Court (SC) has long recognized Article 21 as central to fundamental rights. It views the right to life as encompassing more than just existence, extending to a dignified and meaningful life.
- Expansion of Rights: In the 1980s, the SC expanded Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment. This interpretation has led to various other rights being linked to Article 21, such as education, shelter, clean air, livelihood, and medical care.
- Challenges in Implementation: While these additional rights are acknowledged, their realization often depends on policy implementation and legislative action. Despite numerous environmental cases, issues like clean air remain unresolved without proper policies and laws.
- Significance of Recognition: Even though immediate realization of these rights may be challenging, their recognition as fundamental rights serves two important purposes. Firstly, it urges Parliament to address these issues, and secondly, it enables citizens to seek legal recourse through constitutional courts.
- Climate Change Concerns: The SC also addressed India’s international commitments regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite regulations and policies, there’s a lack of specific legislation on climate change. However, the absence of such laws doesn’t negate Indians’ right to protection from climate change effects.
Apex Court’s Emphasis on Environmental Justice
- Expanding Article 14: The Supreme Court’s judgment broadens the scope of Article 14 to address environmental and climate justice issues. This expansion reflects the court’s commitment to interpreting the right to life to include a clean environment.
- Setting Legal Precedent: This ruling sets a significant legal precedent, influencing public discussions on environmental issues and guiding future government policies. It underscores the importance of aligning with international commitments on environmental protection.
- Gap Between Jurisprudence and Policy: Despite court rulings emphasizing the connection between ecology and human dignity, governments often fail to act. Delhi’s ongoing air pollution crisis highlights this gap between legal principles and executive action.
- Urgent Need for Corrective Measures: The Supreme Court emphasizes the urgency of taking effective measures to address climate change. Its ruling serves as a call to action for states to prioritize environmental concerns and implement necessary corrective actions.
Source: Express View on Supreme Court linking climate change and fundamental rights: A call to action (The Indian Express, April 9, 2024); The citizen’s ‘climate rights’ (The Indian Express, April 9, 2024)