The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently recognized the right to a healthy environment free from adverse effects of climate change as per the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, HMJ JB Pardiwala and HMJ Manoj Misra recalled the Court’s decision dated 19.04.2021 in M.K. Ranjitsinh Vs. Union of India, 2021 Latest Caselaw 207 SC regarding blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines and constituted another Expert Committee to strike a balance between environmental conservation against climate change and sustainable development.
Brief Facts:
The instant matter pertains to a Writ Petition invoking the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for protecting the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, two bird species on the verge of extinction.
Earlier, the Petitioner herein had come up with a Writ Petition in 2019 - M.K. Ranjitsinh Vs. Union of India, 2021 Latest Caselaw 207 SC wherein, the Supreme Court imposed restrictions on the setting up of overhead transmission lines in a large swath of territory, issued directions for conversion to underground power lines within a year, and also appointed a committee to assess the feasibility of laying high voltage underground power lines. Further directions were issued for the installation of bird diverters for overhead power lines awaiting consideration for conversion into underground power lines. Case-specific sanctions were granted by the said Committee when the undergrounding was impossible, while the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (‘MoEF&CC’), the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (‘MNRE’) sought modification for directions in the judgment dated 19.04.2021. The order dated 19.01.2024 indicated the need for preservation of the GIB facing the danger of extinction and to ensure the development of solar power vis à vis India’s commitments at the international level.
Observations of the Court:
Before discussing the legalities of the matter, the Court illuminated the nativity, its home in India, the declining population of the GIB and the tag of ‘critically endangered’ species as classified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (‘IUCN’) since 2011.
The Court discussed India’s obligations towards preventing climate change and tackling its adverse effects under international conventions, the right to a healthy environment free from adverse effects of climate change, Article 48A of the Constitution of India, Clause (g) to Article 51A of Constitution, and also linked the said discussion with the right to life and personal liberty, and equality before the law under Articles 14 and 21. Further reference was made to M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath & Ors, 2000 Latest Caselaw 331 SC wherein it was held that Articles 48A and 51A(g) must be interpreted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also cited Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995), Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa (2006) and Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group (2006) and expressed that “Despite a plethora of decisions on the right to a clean environment, some decisions which recognize climate change as a serious threat, and national policies which seek to combat climate change, it is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change” and clarified that the same is recognised by Articles 14 and 21 being equivalent to the right to clean environment.
The Court explained the impact on underserved communities through an example 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”; “a person living in say, the Lakshadweep Islands, will be in a disadvantageous position compared to person living in say, Madhya Pradesh when sea levels rise and oceanic problems ensue”; and “forest dwellers or tribal and indigenous communities are at a high risk of losing not only their homes but also their culture, which is inextricably intertwined with the places they live in and the resources of that place”.
The Court further emphasized the States’ duty of care to citizens to prevent harm and ensure overall well-being, which also includes the right to a healthy and clean environment. Reference was made to the preamble of the Paris Agreement in this regard. Further international obligations to combat climate change were pointed out while advocating for renewable and sustainable sources of energy with a focus on solar energy evading coal-based fuels.
While discussing climate change litigation and citing various international court decisions, the Court added that it serves as “a pivotal tool in advancing rights-based energy transitions and promoting energy justice, intertwined with human rights principles.”
Therefore, the Court recognized the fundamental right against adverse effects of climate change and reasoned for modification in the judgment dated 19.04.2021 that there was no basis to impose a general prohibition on the installation of transmission lines while there were diverse factors responsible for the reduction in the population of GIB since it was not likely to lead to conservation of the species and that other factors like low fecundity, fragmentation, habitat loss, predators, and loss of prey need to be addressed. He further highlighted that “Unlike the conventional notion of sustainable development, which often pits economic growth against environmental conservation, the dilemma here involves a nuanced interplay between safeguarding biodiversity and mitigating the impact of climate change. It is not a binary choice between conservation and development but rather a dynamic interplay between protecting a critically endangered species and addressing the pressing global challenge of climate change.” The Court further pointed towards the Court's duty to give effect to the international agreements and treaties to which India is a party.
The decision of the Court:
While striving to strike a balance, importance of domain experts was upheld while the Court observed that “If this Court were to direct that the power transmission lines be undergrounded in the entire area delineated above, many other parts of the environment would be adversely impacted. Other endangered species may suffer due to the emission of harmful gases from fossil fuels. Rising temperatures and the attendant evils of climate change may not be halted in a timely fashion, leading to disastrous consequences for humankind and civilisation as a whole. The existential threat may not be averted.”
Therefore, the Court recalled the previous directions prohibiting overhead transmission lines and constituted an Expert Committee.
The Hon’ble Court delineated the specific tasks to be performed by the Expert Committee and kept them at liberty to assess the efficacy of bird diverters and to lay down specifications for the same regarding parameters specified by the Central Electricity Authority, and accordingly submit its report on or before 31.07.2024.
Case Title: M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Petition No. 838 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 205 SC
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv.; Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv.; Ms. Anshula L Bakhru, Adv.; Ms. Surbhi Anand, Adv.; Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv.; Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv.; Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv.; M/S. Legal Options, AOR; Petitioner-in-person
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. R Venkataramani, AGI; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.; Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv.; Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv.; Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.; Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.; Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv.; Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv.; Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.; Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.; Ms. Nidhi Jaiswal, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv.; Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv.; Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR; Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.; Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR; Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv.; Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR; Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR; Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.; Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.; Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR; Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G.; Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR; Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv.; Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.; Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR; Mr. Girish Chowdhary, Adv.; Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv.; Mr. Shaik Mohammed Haneef, Adv.; Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv.; Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR; Mr. Shreay Saini, Adv.; Mr. Tarun Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Ezaj . M Qureshi, Adv.; Mr. Animesh Rajoriya, Adv.; Mr. M.G. Ramchandran, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR; Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.; Ms. Ranjitha Ramchandran, Adv.; Mr. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR; Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv.; Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR; Mr. A. Karthik, AOR; M/S. Vkc Law Offices, AOR Mr. Varun K Chopra, Adv.; Mr. Mehul Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. B P Singh, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Mrs. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Mrs. Smriti Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Deepak Singh, Adv. Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shrama, Adv.; Mr. Ankur Sood, AOR Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Girik Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Damodar Solanki, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
