The Supreme Court in MK Ranjitsinh v. Union of India has ruled that people have a “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”, which should be recognized by the combined reading of Article 14 and Article 21. The court further said that the environment-related aspects of the Directive Principles of State Policy must be read together with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
MK RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA
● History of this case: A writ petition filed in 2019 (MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India) sought conservation directives amid the declining population of Great Indian Bustards.
● Court Orders: In April 2021, the Supreme Court ordered all power lines be buried in Bustard habitat. However, the court later agreed to review its order due to practical challenges highlighted by the centre and considering the importance of renewable energy and climate commitments.
● Revision by Supreme Court: In 2024, while the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protection of Bustard, it modified its order with respect to conversion of overhead transmission line to underground transmission lines. Court has further said that other factors such as low fecundity, fragmentation, habitat loss, predators, and loss of prey must be addressed.
OBSERVATIONS
● Habitat and Species Status: Desert National Park in Rajasthan shelters the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican.
● Threats to Species: Overhead cables, particularly in solar parks, pose a significant threat to the survival of these birds.
● Mortality Statistics: Power Line Mitigation, 2018 report highlighted that around 1 lakh birds die annually due to collisions with power lines, necessitating urgent action to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard.
● Ministry of Power’s Statement: Ministry of Power acknowledged the vulnerability of Great Indian Bustards to power lines due to their lack of frontal vision, emphasizing the risk of collision and electrocution.
● Article 14 and climate change: Supreme Court held that climate change affects the right to equality, the Court reasoned that “If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones. The right to equality would be impacted in each of these instances”.
● Article 21 and right to clean environment: Article 21 of the constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India. Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life, Right to an environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it.
ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA
● In the 1980s, SC read the right to a clean environment as part of Article 21. A bundle of rights, including the right to education, the right to shelter (in the context of slum dwellers), the right to clean air, the right to livelihood (in the context of hawkers), and the right to medical care have all been subsequently included under the umbrella of Article 21.
● Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State: Right to a healthy environment is an important attribute of the right to live with human dignity. The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State. It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which the Supreme Court directed to stop the illegal mining under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
● M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India: Supreme Court treated the right to live in a pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
● Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991): the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment, and it is the duty of the government to protect and improve the environment. The court observed that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be enjoyed in the absence of a clean environment.
● Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India: The Supreme Court held that though industries are vital for the country’s development, having regards to the pollution caused by them, the principle of ‘sustainable development’ has to be adopted as the balancing concept.
● M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996) & Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana: Recognized the right to a clean environment as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court underlined that “it is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change.” Observing how climate change is increasing year by year, the Court underscored the need to recognize this right as a distinct one.
● Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Unionof India (1995): The right to health has also been recognized as a part of the right to life under Article 21.In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court held that the right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the government has a duty to provide adequate medical facilities to its citizens.
● Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs C Kenchappa, 2006: Supreme Court took note of the adverse effects of rising sea levels and rising global temperatures.
● Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, 2006: Supreme Court recognized that climate change posed a “major threat” to the environment.
OUTCOMES OF THE JUDGMENT
● Impact of climate change on health: The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms, and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life as well as the right to equality. The judgment acknowledged the right to a healthy environment, safe from the ill-effects of climate change, was a “fundamental human right”.
● Expanded scope of Article 14: Judgment has expanded the purview of Article 14. It was observed that if climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones.
● Important legal precedent: This judgment will set an important legal precedent and will influence the broader public discourse on environmental matters and has the potential to shape future government policies.
● Importance of solar power: Judgment also highlighted the importance of solar power for arresting ills of climate change.
● Increased energy demand: 25%of global energy demand is likely to be from India in the next two decades.
● Enhanced energy security: Renewable energy provides enhanced energy security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
● Improved public health: adoption of renewable energy technologies helps in curbing air pollution, thereby improving public health and reducing healthcare costs.
.png)
