M. K. Ranjitsingh and Ors. v. Union of India (2024) (Right against adverse effects of climate change).

Introduction

The case of M. K. Ranjitsingh and Ors. v. Union of India (right to clean environment case) is a landmark case delivered by the Indian Supreme Court that upheld the right to live without adverse effects of climate change under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, or the right against climate change. The case adds feather to the environmental jurisprudence of India. The right to a clean environment has already been declared to be a constitutional right.

The Supreme Court discussed various international and national conventions, constitutional frameworks, and other environmental-related judgments to arrive at the definite and sound findings in this case. The present case-law note aims towards presenting before the readers the facts, important observations, and findings related to the case of M. K. Ranjitsingh and Ors. v. Union of India (right to clean environment case). The right to clean  environment was declared to be a constitutional right on an earlier occasion.

Facts of the case

• In this case, a writ petition was filed in 2021 before the Supreme Court in which concern was raised regarding the dwindling or decreasing population of Great India Bustard, a bird species mainly found in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
• The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has recently tagged the bird as a critically endangered species.
• The petitioners basically argued that due to various man-made activities like hunting, overhead transmission lines, installation of turbines, and establishment of solar panels, birds are reporting a huge decline, and these activities are mainly responsible for that.
• Therefore, as a relief, directions were demanded from the apex court, like installing underground transmission lines and prohibiting the installation of solar panels and turbines. Moreover, directions must be issued to control the overgrazing and adopt a grassland conservation policy.
• However, the respondents opposed the directions on the ground that underground transmission lines are not feasible and practically impossible. Moreover, underground installation would cause damage to other underground species and other animal lives.
• Installation of solar power can’t be removed as there is a great need to shift towards renewable or non-conventional sources of energy.
• Therefore, the Union Ministry of Power, environment, forest, and climate change opposed the directions issued by the center.

Issues before the Supreme Court

This case has presented a huge dilemma before the apex court. On the one hand, the Court was required to take positive steps to prevent the Great Indian Bustard and prevent the biodiversity of India, and on the other, the measure of prevention was such that it would lead to some adverse impact on climate change.

On the basis of arguments advanced from both sides, the Supreme Court framed the following issues:

• Whether the loss of biodiversity must be prevented at the risk of incurring adverse impacts of climate change?
• How must a balance be achieved between the prevention of biodiversity on the one hand and the prevention of the environment on the other?
• How may both things be harmoniously balanced?

Observations made by the Supreme Court

To settle the issues, the Court made the following observations:

• First, it was highlighted that the issue of preventing the environment from hazardous human and other activities is a global issue. Time and again, various international treaties and conventions have been signed and ratified to take collective and binding steps to prevent Mother Nature. For example, United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol 2005, Paris Agreement 2015. India is also committed to fulfilling the obligations as directed according to these conventions.
• The Indian Constitution has also, through various Articles like 48 A and 51 A(g), emphasized how India is committed to providing a safe and healthy environment to its people. Moreover, the highest court itself has made various judicial pronouncements to showcase the right to live in a healthy environment or the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Apart from that, India has also enacted various national legislations to protect and improve the environment, like the Wildlife Protection Act, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Water Prevention Act, and Air Prevention Act.
• Today, due to the increase in industrial activities, the emergence of a globalized world, and the resultant climate change, the world is witnessing a large amount of natural calamities like floods, droughts, forest fires, and famines. This violates Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to life, as it includes the right to live free from the adverse impact of climate change. Also, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to equality, because some places that are nearer to water, like Mumbai, Andaman, and Nicobar Islands, and Lakshadweep Islands, are more prone to suffering the adverse impact of climate change. Additionally, the people who are poor without any fixed abode suffer more from the rising temperatures.
• To curb this havoc created by climate change, India has also made some international commitments to be fulfilled, like becoming a net zero carbon emitter by 2070, producing 500 GW of energy through non-fossil fuels till 2050, and shifting towards non-renewable sources of energy.
• The above-mentioned targets may only be fulfilled if India generates renewable energy, and for that, India is dependent largely on solar energy. In fact, Gujarat and Rajasthan are the hotspots for generating solar energy. Indians record remarkable progress and growth in creating and developing solar energy.
• On the other hand, the protection of the Great Indian Bustard is equally important. Loss of biodiversity equally needs to be protected. Both things, safeguarding biodiversity and liberating the world from the adverse impact of climate change, are equally important, and no side may be taken as less important.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on the basis of the observations made above, held that

• The question involved in the present case is a technical one, and therefore a committee must be established consisting of scientific experts who shall suggest some measures on how a fine and an environmentally feasible balance must be achieved to protect the biodiversity and the environment simultaneously.
• Measures must be suggested so that power grid lines. Solar plants are installed in such a way that little or no disturbance or harm is caused to the Great Indian Bustard.

Conclusion

The findings of the court in M. K. Ranjitsingh and Ors. v. Union of India (right against climate change case) are important for the environmental jurisprudence in India. The recognition that the right to live free from the adverse impact of climate change is a constitutional right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution highlights the progressive, evolving, and organic nature of the Indian Constitution.