In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged a basic right to be protected from the harmful effects of climate change (referred to as “the right”). This decision has gained a lot of interest from environmentalists, who mostly discuss its effects on protecting the Great Indian Bustard.
However, an article in The Hindu (The Great Indian Bustard and climate action verdict), dated April 18, 2024, takes a broader look at the decision, examining it in terms of promoting inclusive action on climate change.
Read: Supreme Court Links Environment To Human Rights
Protecting the Great Indian Bustard and Balancing Renewable Energy Development
- Challenges in Conservation Efforts: The petitioners sought protection for the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard, found in Rajasthan and Gujarat. They argued that power lines were causing bustard deaths due to collisions.
- Supreme Court’s Initial Order: The Supreme Court banned the construction of overhead power lines across a large area, prioritizing bustard conservation. It also ordered existing power lines to be placed underground.
- Government’s Opposition and Court’s Response: The government challenged the ban, citing climate commitments and practical challenges of undergrounding power lines. The Court modified its order, tasking experts to find solutions and assess conservation measures.
Recognizing a Right Against Climate Change Impacts
- Court’s Groundbreaking Recognition: The Court acknowledged a right against the adverse impacts of climate change, stemming from constitutional right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life (Article 21)). It highlighted climate change’s threat to these rights and the vulnerability of affected individuals.
- Deliberate Restraint: While recognizing the right, the Court refrained from fully articulating it, deviating from its usual approach. This departure allows for a more informed discourse on climate rights without prematurely defining them.
- Implications and Future Outlook: Although not binding, the Court’s recognition sets a precedent for future climate action. Its cautious approach balances proactive environmental stewardship with avoiding potential judicial overreach. The extent of its influence on future decisions, considering the rights to equality and life, remains uncertain.
- Conflicting Priorities: The judgment sees a conflict between protecting biodiversity and advancing climate action, focusing solely on human interests against climate change.
Proposed Solution: Just Transition Framework
Using the just transition framework can reconcile these conflicts by ensuring equitable transitions to a low-carbon economy while protecting non-human interests like the bustard.
just transition framework.
- The just transition framework aims to make transitions to a low carbon economy more equitable and inclusive.
- It prioritizes the interests of those most affected by these transitions, including workers, vulnerable communities, and small to medium-sized enterprises.
Advantages of the Just Transition Framework
It safeguards the interests of underrepresented groups, such as the bustard, threatened by slow carbon transition projects like solar energy. Ensures no community or entity is left behind in the transition to a sustainable economy.
- Mitigating Conflicts: It prevents climate action and biodiversity protection from opposing each other, promoting inclusive climate action.
- Incorporating Non-Human Interests: By considering the interests of non-human nature, it strengthens climate rights and ecological justice.
- Leading Legal Precedent: Applying this framework in the final decision would set a precedent for considering non-human interests in climate litigation.
Advocating for Inclusive Climate Action
Awaiting the Court’s decision offers an opportunity to embrace the just transition framework, fostering inclusive climate action. It’s a collective responsibility shared by the state, activists, litigants, and academics to shape the recognition, articulation, and enforcement of climate rights.