The Trend in Climate Change Jurisprudence

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• Context of the present case
• Recent judgment on human rights and climate change
• Implications of such judgements
• International precedents

Why in News?

• In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. The court was deciding on a case about how solar power lines were causing many Great Indian Bustards (GIBs) to die. 
• This raised worries because India promised to cut down on harmful emissions and use more clean energy, like solar power.

Context of the present case

• Declining population of GIBs
  • In recent years, one of the factors linked to the decline in the population of the GIB, are power lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat, which host several, large solar parks. 
    • GIB is an endangered species.
  • The concern was that the birds collided against the overhead transmission lines.
• Petition filed in SC in 2019
  • Environmentalists petitioned the Supreme Court in 2019, pleading that all overhead lines, existing and prospective, be shifted underground.
• 2021 order of Supreme Court
  • In April 2021, SC had ordered restrictions on the setting-up of overhead transmission lines in an area covering about 99,000 square kilometres.
  • The Court had constituted a committee of experts to determine which transmission lines ought to go underground and which ones could remain overground.
• Government sought modification in the order
  • later approached the SC, seeking modification of its directions. 
  • The govt claimed this direction will harm India’s global commitments to reduce the carbon footprint by increasing dependence on renewable energy sources.
• March 2024 order
  • In its March 2024 order, the Court has continued to task an expert committee with overseeing the electrification.
  • It also stressed that underground electrification would hinder India’s road to solar electrification.

Recent judgment on human rights and climate change

• Highlighted multiple steps taken by the govt to address climate change
  • The Court notes that the Indian government has taken multiple steps through legislation as well mission-led programmes to address climate change. 
  • The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, were among those referenced in the judgment.
  • The National Solar Mission, the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency and, the National Mission for a Green India were also mentioned.
• Lamented the absence of single or umbrella legislation related to climate change
  • The government has rules and regulations that acknowledge the bad effects of climate change and try to fight it.
  • However, there is no single or umbrella legislation to specifically deal with climate change and its associated problems.
• Right of people against the adverse effects of climate change
  • Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws.
  • These Articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change.
    • Even though the constitution promises that everyone has equal rights and the right to life and freedom, the Court believes it is important to specifically connect climate change with these rights. 
    • They say this is because having a clean environment is just as important as having these rights. 
    • As climate change gets worse each year, it's important to recognize this as its own important right, supported by Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution.
  • It also mentioned that if vulnerable communities, like those living near the coast or experiencing land damage, or if lose crops because of climate-related issues, then it would violate their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. 
  • This makes it even more important to clearly connect climate change with these rights.

Implications of such judgements

• Supreme Court judgments on environmental matters have often significantly altered public discourse and governmental action. 
• For instance, decisions in the M.C. Mehta verus Union of India, the Godavarman Thirumulpad cases have been the foundation of subsequent environmental action.
  • In M C Mehta case, court had directed to relocate dangerous and polluting factories to less populated areas so that they would not pose a threat to human life.
  • The case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India is a landmark environmental case in India.
    • The court ruled that prior approval is necessary to carry out any non-forest activity within the area of any forest.
• In the current case of the Great Indian Bustard too, the ruling has come with the Court underlining the necessity for expanding electricity production for solar energy sources.
• At the same time, it has expanded the fundamental rights chapter to include various facets of a dignified existence. 
  • This is because, for the first time, the right against the adverse effects of climate change has been included in the fundamental rights.

International precedents

• Paris Agreement of 2015
  • The link between climate change and human rights has grown stronger since the Paris Agreement of 2015. 
  • The preamble of the Agreement had references to human rights.
• Various international reports and stand of UN Bodies
  • Various reports have highlighted that there was a growing convergence between the fields of international human rights law (IHRL) and climate change. 
  • Several reports of UN human rights bodies and Human Rights Council resolutions are now drawing a link between rights and climate change.
  • Scholars also argue that the framing of climate change as affecting future generations and endangering their right to a liveable planet follows from the link to human rights.

Q.1. What Is Climate Change?

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

Q.2. What is climate jurisprudence?

Climate jurisprudence is a rights-based approach that frames climate change as a matter of justice. It demands that policies and measures to address climate change also protect and promote human rights

Source: The trend in climate change jurisprudence | Explained