Note4Students: 

Prelims: Recent Supreme Court judgments;

Mains: Environmental Governance;

Mentor comments: Mrs. Indira Gandhi once in her Stockholm Conference speech which was derived from ‘Atharva Veda’ to outline the need for maintaining Ecological Balance, concluded “What of thee I dig out, let that quickly grow over. Let me not hit thy vitals or thy heart. ” On similar lines, the efforts made by the Supreme Court of India in the Constitutionalization of Environmental Problems can be very much attributed when it Constitutionalized the subject of Environmental Governance by adding Article 48(A) and 51-A (g) through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976.  Further, in the M C Mehta vs Union of India case (1985), the Supreme Court introduced the ‘Doctrine of Absolute Liability’ which undermines the hazardous industries liable for harming the ecological balance by their industrial activities.  This time too (in April 2024), the Apex Court said the Rights to Life (Article 14) and Right to Equality (Article 21) cannot be fully realized without a clean, stable environment.

Let’s learn

—

Why in the News?

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India recognized the existence of a fundamental right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change (hereinafter ‘the right’). The judgment has garnered significant attention from environmentalists, mostly focusing only on its impacts on the protection of the Great Indian Bustard.  

The Right

• Great Indian Bustard Conservation vs. Renewable Energy Development: Rajasthan and Gujarat are home to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard, but also have significant potential for solar and wind power. A public interest litigation sought conservation of the bustard and a ban on further construction of solar and wind energy infrastructure due to the hazard posed by power lines to the bustards.
• Supreme Court’s Initial Order: The Supreme Court imposed a blanket ban on the laying of overhead power lines in a large area, including priority and potential bustard conservation areas. It also ordered the undergrounding of existing power lines.
• Government’s Challenge the order: The government challenged the order citing international climate commitments, stating the ban covered a larger area than necessary and undergrounding power lines was impractical. It attributed the bustard decline to factors like poaching and habitat destruction.
• Supreme Court’s Modification: The Court modified the initial order, recalling the blanket prohibition on transmission lines and tasked a committee to assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines and identifying conservation measures. The committee’s report is expected by July 2024.
• Recognition of Right Against Climate Change: The Supreme Court recognized a right against the adverse impacts of climate change, rooted in Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution, along with India’s climate change actions and scientific consensus.
•  Non-binding Recognition: The Court’s recognition of the right isn’t in the operative part of the judgment, hence not binding. Its influence on future climate action remains to be seen.

Just transition framework

• Transition Framework: Conservationist Debadityo Sinha suggests adopting the just transition framework, aiming to make transitions to a low carbon economy more equitable and inclusive. This approach considers the interests of workers, vulnerable communities, and small and medium-sized enterprises affected by slow carbon transition projects like solar energy.

Advantages of the Just Transition Framework:

• Precludes adversarial choices: It avoids pitting climate action against biodiversity protection, advocating for inclusive climate action sensitive to varied rights and interests.
• Expanding the concept to include non-human interests.: If used in the final decision, this case could become a frontrunner in just transition litigation, contributing to expanding the concept to include non-human interests.

A ‘shared burden’

• Shared Responsibility: The burden of articulating and enforcing the right falls not only on the state but also on activists, litigants, and academics. They contribute to the process of recognition, articulation, and enforcement of rights, indirectly or directly.
• Inclusivity and Effectiveness: The focus is on making the right against climate change inclusive and effective, ensuring that it considers diverse perspectives and addresses the needs of all stakeholders, including marginalized communities and non-human interests.
• Importance of Participation: Active participation from various stakeholders is crucial in shaping the content and implementation of the right against climate change, fostering collaboration between the judiciary, state, activists, litigants, and academics.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s recognition of a right against climate change underscores the need for inclusive climate action. Embracing the just transition framework and fostering shared responsibility and participation are crucial for effective implementation.