The Indian Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgement on Climate Change: Implications Going Forward

Introduction

On the 8^th of April 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark opinion, strengthening the nation’s fight against climate change. One of the few of its kind, this judgement seeks to provide the Indian citizenry with the legal protections necessary to hold any party accountable, should they not put in enough effort to mitigate the effects of man-made global warming. In this judgement, the Supreme Court also laid down certain observations on the nature of climate change and the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. In plain terms, the Supreme Court has stated that the consequences of climate change are an infringement of the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This judgement thus highlights the growing consensus among nations regarding the impacts climate change has on human society.

This article will seek to dissect these opinions within the judgement, focusing on their impact on India’s society at large. Additionally, this article will also look at the broader diplomatic advantages this judgement can offer India, when it comes to the nation’s contributions to the fight against climate change.

Backgrounder to the Case and Judgement:

The case, titled ‘M K Rajnitsinh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.’, initiated in 2019, saw the defendants, primary among them MK Ranjitsinh Jhala,         former chairman of the Wildlife trust of India, seeking protection for the, as part of the judgement related to the conservation of the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard, an indigenous avian species, and their habitats. An initial order in the case was given in 2021, which directed that where any transmission lines which were laid down for electrification projects in the area, had to be placed underground. However, solar power and wind energy companies, finding it difficult to work with the directions in the 2021, challenged this order, leading to the most recent judgement by the justices. The current judgement, recognized the need to update the decisions made in the 2021 verdict, and the need to walk the line between the development, along with ensuring the protection of the species. Thus, the Supreme Court formed a seven-member committee, which would decide those areas considered a priority, both for placing transmissions lines and protecting the habitat of the avian species.

The judgement stands out since it outlines not only the hard measures which need to be taken on the protection of the habitats of the Great Indian Bustard, but also the importance for a nation to protect its citizens against the impacts of climate change. The bench of justices, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, took cognizance of the efforts India has, so far, undertaken on climate change. Focusing on the international initiatives, along with the laws enacted by the centre, the judgement shows the amount of work the Indian state has done so far in this regard. From the many Acts passed by the Legislative branch, to the international agreements India is signatory to, the judgement asserts that India is already in the continuous process of working to preserve the natural environment within their nation, while also adhering to international standards. This judgement, overall, paints a positive picture of India’s efforts to combat climate change, focusing on the strategic need for the nation to move away from its dependence on fossil fuels for the nation’s energy requirements.

The ethical aspect of this judgement is that it outlines the rationale for climate change mitigation to be linked to the Fundamental Rights the Constitution granted to the Indian citizenry, under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also mentions the non-enforceable Directive Principles of State Policy as written in Articles 48A and 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution. Through this link, the justices opine that the adverse effects of climate change have a direct impact on the quality of life of the citizens. The justices also point out that despite the present laws and regulations enacted to protect India’s natural environment, there is no single umbrella legislation which ensures the holistic right of the citizen to live in a clean environment.

Cases in other courts outside India:

The Supreme Court of India, at present, is not the only institution to look at the effect of climate change from a human rights perspective. On the 9^th of April 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the highest court on matters of the protection of Human Rights in Europe, laid down a judgement which found the government of Switzerland guilty of violating Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This judgement, in essence, states that the government of Switzerland failed to take sufficient action against the adverse effects of climate change, by not quantifying its own Greenhouse Gas Emissions targets, and failing to set in place proper regulatory frameworks at all levels. This marks a rare case where a court has held an entire government responsible for not upholding its own rules and regulations, failing to provide for the basic needs of a healthy environment for its citizens. While both judgements come from different perspectives, their end result is the same. It places the onus on the government to ensure the right of the citizens to enjoy a good quality of life, in a clean environment, through a focus on an acceleration of the measures related to climate change mitigation.

These cases, both in India and the European Union, are part of a growing trend of nations either starting discussions related to mitigating the worst effects of climate change. In this regard, India is not alone, as all nations, regardless of their economic development, are introducing clauses within their constitutions to ensure each government takes the problem climate change poses seriously.

This can also be seen within the United Nations, as over 100 member nations of the General Assembly have put forth a case for an advisory opinion before the International Court of Justice. The member states, in their request, have asked the Court to provide an opinion on the obligations each state has, under international law, to protect its natural environment from the spectre of climate change.

This is part of the change seen across the world, as many nations are not only including clauses related to mitigating climate change within their own territories, but also pledging at the international level to work together in a spirit of collaboration to solve this threat to all humanity.

The importance of the Judgement

However, where the Indian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights differ, is in how their judgements have deepened the debate around climate change. Despite the Paris Agreement recognizing the need to stand by the state’s obligations to protect their citizens’ human rights, the same document makes no mention or elaboration on how the states should balance their obligations between mitigating climate change and citizen rights. Additionally, despite this brief recognition, nations are yet to integrate human rights with their own efforts to mitigate climate change. By bringing in the issue of human rights to the centre of the debate, the European Court has not only held the government of Switzerland culpable of gross neglect of its own citizens, but has also adopted a citizen-centric approach to the arbitration surrounding the issue.

The Supreme Court, through this judgement, has taken a slightly different approach. While Articles 48A and 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution refer to the responsibility of the citizen and the state to contribute to the protection of the environment, they are simply directive principles, and thus cannot be legally enforced. This judgement may upgrade them to enforceable legal opinion, ensuring that any lack of action under these articles can be legally challenged. The overt linking of the Fundamental Rights of the citizen in this judgement also serves to provide further strength to any litigation on the matter, giving the litigants the avenue to look at climate change from the basic angle of human survival and happiness. Thus, the Supreme Court has given the Indian citizenry the tools to hold any party not working towards climate change accountable, just as the European Court of Human Rights has held the Swiss government accountable.

Legal Implications for India:

In India, legislation to protect the environment is still very fragmented, with different laws existing for each element of the environment. Due to this lack of centralization in law, anyone involved in litigation on these issues will have to only focus on the element they want to protect, leading to the other elements of the environment being left unchecked, or needing new litigation to address the impact on these elements. These laws against air pollution, forest conservation, natural resource conservation, being laws of their own, do not take a holistic view of the environment and its impact on society.

The judgement, in its wording, places a more holistic outlook on the danger of climate change, ensuring the impact of future cases related to climate change will have a more comprehensive impact on the environment a whole, without the arguments only leading to a focus on one element of the environment. Secondly, if this judgement is used properly, it can lead to greater room for those who are affected by climate change to approach the courts with their issues, without having to rely on the specific laws as their only recourse. This judgement can also help strengthen the existing laws related to environmental protections, ensuring the words of the justices of the Supreme Court can act as a multiplier to making these laws more effective.

Diplomatic implications:

For India’s strategic calculus, this judgement can have long-lasting effects. While the many advantages this judgement gives will take time to realize, the soft power advantages this judgement can give the nation is immense indeed.

In this regard, this judgement can be used at international forums, not only to highlight India’s efforts when it comes to working against climate change, but to serve as a precedent for the world’s governments who are exploring similar measures. While the strength of this judgement will depend on the way future cases that use this judgement as their basis are handled by the lower courts, the fact that such a judgement exists is a sign of actionable commitment, which India can use as part of its soft power projections. Despite India being a developing nation which will need a push towards more industrialization, this commitment by India’s Supreme Court is a plain signal that no nation, regardless of development level, can focus only on the economic betterment of the nation, and has to focus on the preservation of its environment.

The passage of this judgement also has implications on how a nation views the sanctity of human rights as a concept. By ensuring the fundamental rights of the citizen are intertwined with the consequences of climate change, the Supreme Court has, in effect, placed the focus on a growing topic of debate within the circles of climate change politics: that of the convergence between universal human rights and climate change. As the UN has called climate change a threat multiplier to human security and peace, and as climate crises worsen with each passing year, this judgement from the Supreme Court highlights the importance such a convergence between issues deserves. By this linkage, the Supreme Court is effectively creating a pathway for any future litigation on climate change to also, potentially, address the issues of any human rights issues which will arise, including but not limited to the impact it can have on the access to the basic necessities of food, water and shelter.

Conclusion:

This judgement answers some fundamental questions on how to approach climate change from a human-centric perspective, instead of a purely developmental or security concern.

Domestically, this judgement will enable greater clarity on future litigation on climate change by linking the issue holistically to the basic rights of citizens. By doing so the Supreme Court, in effect, has given equal priority to the quality of human life and the concept of economic development. Looking at climate change through this lens will offer the legal community of India greater grounds to enact stronger climate change legislation in the future.

Internationally, this judgement will undoubtedly help strengthen the positions India takes when it comes to the fight against climate change. This judgement is a concrete step taken by India in fulfilling its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Thus, at any international forum on the subject, India has the opportunity to showcase the strength of its judicial system, highlighting the progressive nature of India’s judiciary and the compatibility of international requirements with the domestic laws of any nation. Taking this further, India can use the soft power of this judgement to help other nations enact similar judgements and legislation, ensuring the world starts placing humanity at the centre of the debates around climate change. The provision of such a soft power advantage is one India needs to take advantage of, if it to be seen as a partner willing to take any step necessary to protect the world from such a man-made disaster.

References:

• Ajoy Sinha Karpuram (2024, 26 April). How Supreme Court Is Overseeing Conservation Of The Great Indian Bustard. The Indian Express. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-court-conservation-great-indian-bustard-9234896/.
• Apoorva (2024, 26 April). Why SC’s Recognition Of Right To Be Free From Climate Change Impact Is Cause For Cautious Optimism. Scroll.in. Accessed 27/04/2024. https://scroll.in/article/1066843/why-scs-recognition-of-right-to-be-free-from-climate-change-impact-is-cause-for-cautious-optimism.
• Climate Change Recognized As ‘Threat Multiplier’, UN Security Council Debates Its Impact On Peace (n.d.). Commission On Consolidation of Peace. United Nations Organization. Accessed 25/04/2024. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/fr/news/climate-change-recognized-‘threat-multiplier’-un-security-council-debates-its-impact-peace.
• COP27: Urgent Need To Respect Human Rights In All Climate Change Action, Say UN Experts (2022, 04 November). Office of the High Commissioner – United Nations Human Rights Council. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/11/cop27-urgent-need-respect-human-rights-all-climate-change-action-say-un-experts.
• Doreen Lustig and Ilil Gabison (2023, 06 December). How Climate Change Jurisprudence Alters Human Rights from Within: Between Distributive Justice and Human Rights Concerns. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4570187.
• Elena Kosolapova (2024, 20 March). ICJ to Rule on States’ Climate-related Obligations: How Did We Get Here? SDG Knowledge Hub. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessed 07/05/2024. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/policy-briefs/icj-to-rule-on-states-climate-related-obligations-how-did-we-get-here/.
• Karla Toral et al., (2021, 02 December). The 11 Nations Heralding A New Dawn Of Climate Constitutionalism. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Accessed 05/05/2024. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-11-nations-heralding-a-new-dawn-of-climate-constitutionalism/.
• M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2024). Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838. Civil Appeal No 3570. INSC 280. Supreme Court of India. Accessed 15/04/2024. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20754/20754_2019_1_25_51677_Judgement_21-Mar-2024.pdf.
• Paris Agreement (2015, 12 December). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Organization. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf.
• Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policy (n.d.). Ministry of External Affairs -Government of India. Accessed 07/05/2024. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/Part4.pdf.
• Pooja P. Vardhan (2014, 04 June). Environment Protection Under Constitutional Framework Of India. Press Information Bureau – Government of India. Accessed 07/05/2024. https://pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=105411.
• Prathiksha Ullal and Sneha Priya Yanappa (2024, 10 April). Why Supreme Court Ruling On Climate Change Isn’t Enough. The Indian Express. Accessed 16/04/2024. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/why-supreme-court-ruling-on-climate-change-isnt-enough-9257928/.
• The Effects of Climate Change (n.d.). National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA). Accessed 08/05/2024. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/.
• The Hindu Bureau (2024, 08 April). Right Against Climate Change A Distinct Fundamental And Human Right, SC Judgment. The Hindu. accessed 07/05/2024. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/right-against-climate-change-a-distinct-fundamental-and-human-right-sc-judgment/article68041693.ece.
• Violations Of The European Convention For Failing To Implement Sufficient Measures To Combat Climate Change (2024, 09 April). Press Release. European Court of Human Rights. Accessed 17/04/2024. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7919428-11026177&filename=Judgment%20Verein%20KlimaSeniorinnen%20Schweiz%20and%20Others%20v.%20Switzerland%20-%20Violations%20of%20the%20Convention%20for%20failing%20to%20implement%20sufficient%20measures%20to%20combat%20climate%20change.pdf.