Beyond Climate Rights
Will the “Right Against Adverse Effects of Climate Change” advance the case for a sustainable environment or remain mere words on paper?
Right against the adverse effects of climate change, recognized by the Supreme Court of India as a distinct fundamental right, is one of the most significant rulings on climate change in recent times. The Supreme Court, on April 05, 2024, acknowledged that climate change is closely linked to the fundamental rights of citizens and thus expanded the scope of Article 14 and Article 21 to include the Right to be free against the effects of climate change.
Article 21 guarantees the Protection of life and Personal liberty, while Article 14 provides equality before the law and the equal protection of laws. Although the SC had previously incorporated the Right to live in a clean environment under the provisions of Article 21, the court reasoned that the Right to live in a clean environment and the Right against adverse effects of climate change is no different, hence giving it a distinct entity.
Striking a Balance
The event that caused the Supreme Court’s directive came in the case of multiple deaths of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a critically endangered species, mostly found in regions of Gujarat and Rajasthan. Rajasthan and Gujarat boast the highest solar generation capacity in the country, with multiple solar generation parks and high-voltage transmission lines. And of course, these high power lines pose an obstacle in birds’ flight routes, leading to fatal collisions, particularly for the Great Indian Bustard, which faces additional challenges due to its limited frontal vision.
After multiple sessions, the final verdict directed an expert committee to formulate the extent of underground and overhead lines while revoking its earlier decision on placing the low voltage lines in “priority (13550 sq km)” and “potential (80688 sq km)” regions underground, while converting the overhead lines, below the ground (“since it was technically and economically not possible”).
Well, it’s disheartening that India’s drive towards clean energy adoption and its ambitious target of establishing 450 GW capacity of renewable energy by 2030 is at the expense of killing a critically endangered species. Nevertheless, the verdict makes sense, marking nearly 80000 sq km of land for underground power lines may have its own efficiency-related, technical, and economic issues. However, the fact that the potential extinction of GIB would mark the first major avian species to go extinct after independence cannot be overlooked.
Is a Ruling Enough?
The Indian judiciary and legislature have enforced various laws to promote environmental conservation in the past. The Wildlife Protection Act (1972), Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1974), Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1981), Environment Protection Act (1986), and recent amendment in the Energy Conservation Act (2001) to introduce carbon credit trading scheme being few highlights. Furthermore, Article 48A mandates the state to protect and improve the environment, along with safeguarding forests and wildlife.
However, it appears that these Constitutional rights are primarily designed to provide legal recourse for individuals to address instances where environmental protection laws are violated, rather than being expressly formulated to combat climate change actively. Formulating laws won’t help unless the implementation is spot-on. Hence translating these into tangible action requires effort.
Oversight- What if the modifications in overhead lines still lead to Great Indian Bustards getting harmed? Will we await another petition to be filed? Probably not.
The environment needs a holistic perspective than just a sum of isolated elements- air, water, forest, and wildlife. The comprehensive impact on the environment as a whole must be evaluated before initiating actions. What if laying underground cables to protect GIB compromises soil quality or water levels or causes increased environmental disturbance? Similarly, halting the project is not a solution since renewable energy is itself a pivotal component of mitigating climate change.
There is no doubt that the Right against the adverse effects of climate change will instigate a positive change for a healthy and sustainable environment as it enhances legal responsibility and empowers people to appeal to the court. States and the Center need to clear the gap as despite state governments being better equipped and knowledgeable about their environmental issues, the central government influences financial decisions.
To uphold what the apex court said, that degradation in environment and living conditions, food and water shortage due to calamities, and displacement of affected communities will violate the Right of equality as not all will be able to cope with this adversity it is essential to understand the intersectionality of climate change with social, economic and human rights issues and adopt a broader, more holistic approach.
