Introduction: The boiling frog syndrome

Have you heard about the boiling frog syndrome, it comes from a fable and it aptly fits with a real world problem of present era, climate change. It connotes the notion that we don’t feel the difference until it’s too late. Our world is in hot waters, massive floods, extreme ocean temperatures, record heat, and forest fires burning out of control and pluming smoke. A decade ago, any one of these events would have been an aberration but now they all are happening simultaneously. Climate alarm bells are ringing (e.g., Venezuela becomes first country to lose all its glaciers) and it’s time to wake up and hear them because this boiling pot is getting hotter every day. Interestingly, if a country lost $270 Billion because of one enemy, the country would declare a war against that enemy but this is not the case herein, the aforementioned numbers are from India and the enemy here is Climate Change. In this post, I decoded the recent developments regarding the rights based climate litigation and impact of same on human rights.

Recent developments: Decoding the context

Climate Change is bleeding the world all over. In India, the situation is so bad that the country’s top court weighed in with a progressive step and ruled that Indian’s have a “right to be free from adverse effects of Climate Change”. A three judge bench of Supreme Court of India (“SCI”) in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India delivered a historic judgement in context of human rights and climate litigation in India by reading the rights regarding climate change under Article 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution (“COI”). Unfortunately, the judgement went unnoticed in international legal community and between scholars. It is because one of its kind and a watershed judgement has been delivered by European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in a climate litigation case wherein it was held that insufficient climate change action is a human rights violation and government of Switzerland is guilty for violating Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Breathing the Life: Background and Judgement

In India, the case centered on the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (“GIB”), a critically endangered species native to India. The Supreme Court's intervention was sought to address the adverse impacts of overhead power transmission lines on the GIB population. The initial judgment in April 2021 mandated the conversion of these lines to underground cables in critical habitats. However, subsequent developments led to a reconsideration of this directive, balancing the conservation needs with the practicalities of renewable energy development.

The judgement of SCI comes in response to a writ petition u/a 32 of the COI (in form of Public interest litigation) filed by petitioner. SCI imposed restrictions on new overhead transmission lines within a 99,000 square kilometre area and mandated the conversion of existing low-voltage lines to underground cables in priority habitats of the Great Indian Bustard??. This decision underscores the court's proactive stance in environmental jurisprudence, linking it directly to right to life under Article 21, which encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment??.

Analytical Facet: Human-centric approach

The judgment reflects an evolving understanding within Indian jurisprudence that the right to a healthy environment is integral to human rights. The prominent takeaway from the ruling is Court’s explicit recognition and reading of right to be free from adverse effect of climate change under fundamental rights of COI. (Para 19 and 24). Article 48A of the Indian Constitution mandates the state to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A(g) enjoins citizens to safeguard natural resources??. These constitutional provisions, though non-justiciable, have been judicially interpreted to support the right to life under Article 21, thereby embedding environmental rights within the broader human rights framework. The Court referred to case of M.C. Mehta and Virender Gaur amongst other to develop the jurisprudence. The SCI acknowledged that communities more vulnerable to climate change due to their geographic and economic conditions could face infringements on their fundamental rights envisaged u/a 14.

In the context of climate change, this judicial approach gains further significance. Climate change poses severe threats to human health, livelihoods, and the overall ecosystem. By protecting the GIB and enforcing stringent measures against environmental degradation, the court indirectly addresses the broader issue of climate resilience and sustainable development. This perspective aligns with international human rights norms, which increasingly recognize the adverse impacts of environmental harm on human rights?. The SCI emphasized the need to “recognize the intricate interface between the conservation of an endangered species, such as the Great Indian Bustard, and the imperative of protecting against climate change” (Para 53), and concluded that a total ban on overhead transmission lines was not suitable, leaving the task to determine feasibility of same to an expert committee formed by court. (Para 61).

Comparative Jurisprudence and Strengthening India’s Position

Globally, there is a growing body of climate change litigation that seeks to hold governments and corporations accountable for environmental degradation. For instance, the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda case mandated the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, setting a precedent for climate justice. Similarly, SCI’s judgement, through its proactive environmental jurisprudence, contributes to this global movement by affirming that ecological sustainability is indispensable to human well-being. Internationally, the judgment bolsters India's stance in global climate negotiations. By demonstrating judicial commitment to climate action, India can present this case as evidence of its efforts to meet obligations under international agreements such as the Paris Agreement. The right fostered herein by SCI is one of the satellite rights amongst others as termed by Aman Mehta in his post and this move not only enhances India's credibility on the global stage but also sets an example for other nations to integrate human rights considerations into their climate policies.

Conclusion

The SCI’s judgement is a landmark decision that underscores the intrinsic link between human rights and environmental protection. The Court has paved the way for more comprehensive and rights-based climate litigation in India. This judgment not only addresses the immediate concern of protecting the GIB but also provides a strategic framework for balancing ecological conservation with sustainable development.

Moving forward, it is imperative for the legal community and policymakers to leverage this judgment to enact stronger climate change legislation. This will ensure that India's developmental trajectory aligns with its environmental and human rights obligations, fostering a future where economic growth and ecological sustainability coexist harmoniously. The judgment serves as a critical tool in the global fight against climate change, advocating for a human-centric approach. I would like to conclude by few lines:  

In India's courts, a landmark stance was laid,

For human rights, the climate debt is paid.

The Great Indian Bustard’s plight addressed,

With laws for nature's rights to coexist, confessed.

Equality and life entwined in this decree,

A future clear where green laws reign free.

Global echoes of this judgement's might,

India’s commitment to a future bright

Shelal L. Rajput is an ultimate year student reading law [B.B.A LL.B (H)] from Symbiosis Law School, Pune.