The Supreme Court (SC) of India, for the first time, acknowledged on April 5, 2024, that protection from the harmful effects of climate change is a fundamental right, which is closely linked to the right to life and equality and is enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This recognition was part of a ruling delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. The bench was hearing a case concerning the conservation of the great Indian bustard (GIB) (Ardeotis nigriceps). GIB has been losing its habitat due to power transmission lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan.
Background of the Case
The GIB is a bird species native to the southern and western India, with a primary presence in Rajasthan. It typically inhabits grasslands and arid landscapes. Over the years, the population of the GIB has drastically declined, leading the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to classify it as ‘critically endangered’ since 2011, a status reaffirmed in the 2018 Assessment. Prior to this, the species had been listed as ‘endangered’ from 1994 to 2008 and ‘threatened’ in 1988. This alarming decline in population is largely due to habitat destruction, hunting, human disturbances, making urgent conservation efforts crucial to prevent the species from becoming functionally extinct.
In 2013, the Rajasthan government estimated the population of the GIB to be around 125, while the IUCN reported a range of 50 to 249 mature individuals. The species faces compounded threats due to its already low numbers and slow reproductive rates. These threats include pollution, climate change, predators and competition from invasive species. Overhead transmission lines pose a major hazard, while local predators and grazing cattle threaten the bird’s ground-laid eggs. Additionally, habitat loss driven by human expansion, infrastructure development, and fragmentation further jeopardise the species’ survival.
In the light of these challenges, a writ petition was filed under Article 32, urging the court to intervene in the conservation efforts for the GIB. The petitioner requested judicial directives to support the preservation of this critically endangered species, emphasising the urgent need for strengthened conservation measures.
The Judgment
In a landmark ruling, the SC has broadened the scope of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution to encompass the “right against the adverse effects of climate change”. The three-judge bench stated that Article 48A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A requires every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to show compassion to living creatures. While these provisions are not justiciable, they signify that the Constitution acknowledges the importance of the natural world.
The judgment further stated that the significance of the environment, as indicated in these provisions, is elevated to a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, while Article 14 ensures that all individuals are entitled to equality before the law and the equal protection of laws. These Articles serve as crucial foundations for the right to a clean environment and the right to protection from the adverse effects of climate change.
The court observed that, despite various government policies, rules and regulations acknowledging the adverse effects of climate change and aiming to address it, India lacks a single comprehensive legislation specifically focused on climate change and its related concerns. However, the court emphasised that this does not imply that the people of India do not have the right to protection from the adverse effects of climate change.
Regarding the right to a clean environment, the court stated that without a clean environment that is stable and unaffected by the fluctuations of climate change, the right to life cannot be fully realised. The right to health, which is a part of the right to life under Article 21, is compromised by issues such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, food shortages caused by crop failure, storms, and flooding. The inability of undeserved communities to adapt to or cope with the effects of climate change infringes upon the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14).
Earlier on April 19, 2021, a Supreme Court bench had imposed restrictions on the installation of overhead transmission lines across an area of approximately 99,000 square kilometres covering parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan for the protection of birds. The court also proposed the conversion of the existing overhead low and high voltage power lines into underground lines. Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy approached the SC requesting a modification of its directions. They highlighted the fact that India has made international commitments regarding transition to non-fossil fuels and the reduction of emissions and that the area in question contains significant portion of the country’s solar and wind energy potential. The ministries also argued that converting high voltage power lines to underground cables was technically unfeasible.
The bench, granting the request, acknowledged the practical challenges in implementing the order, including technical issues, land acquisition difficulties, and prohibitive costs. Writing for the bench, the then CJI also addressed the issues of climate change jurisprudence, emphasising the importance of harnessing renewable energy, particularly solar power. He noted the need to strike a balance between the conservation of the GIB and the broader goal of environmental conservation.
The Apex court stated, “A blanket direction for undergrounding high and low voltage power lines, as directed by this court, would require recalibration”. It then established a nine-member expert committee to “assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines in specific areas, taking into account factors such as terrain, population density, and infrastructure requirements”. The court further instructed the committee to “complete its task and submit a report to this court through the Union government on or before July 31, 2024.
The court noted that India aimed to achieve an installed renewable energy capacity of 175 Gigawatts by 2022, excluding large hydro, a goal that reflected the country’s commitment to adopting clean energy. Additionally, the future target is to reach an installed capacity of 450 Gigawatts by 2030.
The court remarked that, to meet these targets, India has implemented various policy measures and initiatives aimed at promoting renewable energy investment, innovation, and adoption. The court also referenced the Centre’s affidavit in the case, which emphasised that India’s commitment to transitioning to non-fossil fuels is not merely a strategic energy goal, but a vital necessity for environmental preservation. The court added, “Investing in renewable energy not only addresses these urgent environmental issues but also brings a wide range of socio-economic benefits”.
The bench stated that the promotion of renewable energy sources is essential for advancing social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy for all segments of society particularly in rural and undeserved areas. This, in turn, will contribute to poverty alleviation, improve quality of life and promote inclusive growth and development across the country. The bench has further emphasised that transitioning to renewable energy is not only an environmental necessity but also a strategic investment in India’s future prosperity, resilience, and sustainability.
The bench noted that the intersection between climate change and human rights has recently gained significant attention, highlighting the necessity for states to address climate impacts through a rights-based approach. It stated that “states owe a duty of care to citizens to prevent harm and ensure overall well-being”, adding that “the right to a healthy and clean environment is undoubtedly a part of this duty of care”. The bench further emphasised that states are obliged to take effective measures to mitigate climate change and ensure that all individuals have the capacity to adapt to the climate crisis.
The bench stated that it is essential to harness power from renewable energy sources in Rajasthan and Gujarat to meet the growing power demand in the country in a timely and sustainable manner. It also pointed out that this is required by India’s international commitments regarding climate change.
The bench highlighted the importance of solar energy as a key solution in the global transition to cleaner energy sources. It stated that India urgently needs to shift to solar power due to three pressing issues:
First, India is expected to account for 25 per cent of global energy demand growth in the next two decades, making a transition to solar essential for enhanced energy security, self-sufficiency and mitigating environmental impacts. Failure to do so could increase reliance on coal and oil, leading to both economic and environmental costs. Second, widespread air pollution underlines the need for cleaner energy sources, such as solar, to reduce pollution from fossil fuels. Lastly, declining groundwater levels and decreasing rainfall highlight the necessity of diversifying energy sources. Solar power, unlike coal, does not deplete groundwater supplies. The bench emphasised that the widespread use of solar power is crucial for achieving cleaner, more affordable, and sustainable energy.
The SC, while addressing the technical challenges in implementing the April 2021 order, pointed out that underground power transmission cables are only available in 400 kilovolts, with lengths limited to 250 metres. This would result in more joints, increasing the risk of leaks. The court also noted that the transmission loss in these cables is approximately five times higher, as they are less efficient in transmitting Alternating Current (AC) power.
The bench also noted that the Electricity Act, 2003 does not provide for the acquisition of land needed for laying underground cables, while overhead transmission lines only require the right of way. It further pointed out that underground cables could potentially lead to environmental issues, such as threats to vulnerable species and an increased risk of forest fires.
Global Scenario on the Issue
The SC ruling assumes greater significance when we survey what the international jurisprudence state on the issue under discussion. For example, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the rights of a Swiss association consisting of old women who were concerned about the impacts of global warming on their lives. The ECHR held that Swiss government’s failure to meet the emissions target did violate their human rights.
The Dutch Supreme Court in State of Netherland v. Urgenda Foundation case acknowledged the obligation under their Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 8 (Right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and compelled the Dutch government to adopt climate-related policies.
Conclusion
The SC’s recognition of the right against climate change represents a significant advancement in both environmental protection and human rights. This landmark decision creates an obligation for the government to take effective action to address the adverse impacts of climate change, thus safeguarding not only the environment but also fundamental rights such as the right to life and equality. The judgment highlights the interconnectedness of environmental conservation, sustainable development, and human well-being.
India’s commitment to international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, reflects its global responsibility to mitigate climate change. The court acknowledged the Union of India’s defence that the country must fulfil its international treaty obligations, reinforcing the accountability of governments in addressing climate-related challenges.
Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see how the SC responds to collective actions by communities or class actions on climate change, particularly when it is challenging for both the State and private enterprises.
© Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd.
