Introduction
The landmark judgment of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India was delivered by the Supreme Court (“SC”) on March 21, 2024, and it plays a significant role in the constitutional recognition of climate rights in India. This judgement focuses on the crucial balance between environmental conservation and advancement of renewable energy, with a particular emphasis on solar power
The case originated from a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking the SC’s intervention to protect the endangered Great Indian Bustard (“GIB”) and Lesser Florican. The primary concern was the threat posed by overhead transmission lines to these species. The Supreme Court mandated undergrounding power lines near the endangered bird’s habitat, asserting that a healthy environment is vital for all lives and linking Article 14’s right to equality with Article 21’s right to life, emphasizing that everyone has the right to be protected from the harmful effects of climate change.
Recent Statistics and Climate Conditions in India
India has been grappling with severe climate-related challenges. Recent data recorded 2024 as one of the hottest years on record, with temperatures exceeding 45°C in multiple states, especially Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh reaching this peak in May 2024.
This heatwave resulted in widespread health crises, affecting millions and causing significant agricultural losses. Simultaneously, the monsoon season, traditionally supporting India’s rural economy, has become increasingly unpredictable, exacerbating food security issues and economic instability.
According to a report by the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), 2023 India witnessed a 20% increase in the frequency of extreme weather events compared to the previous decade. The Climate Change Performance Index 2024 ranked India at the seventh position in global climate performance. These alarming trends underline the critical need for immediate and robust climate action to safeguard India’s economy and environment from the escalating impacts of climate change.
II: Pre-M.K. Manjitsinh Climate Legislation in India
Before the landmark M.K. Ranjitsinh judgment, India’s climate legislation and the recognition of environmental rights were rooted in a combination of constitutional provisions, environmental laws, and government initiatives.
Constitutional Provisions and Environmental Laws
Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution mandate the state and citizens to protect and improve the environment. These articles are read in conjunction with Article 21 by the judiciary, guaranteeing the right to life. Notable cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar cemented this interpretation, emphasizing that environmental degradation directly impacts the right to life and personal liberty.
India also has vital environmental laws, including the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. These acts provide regulatory frameworks to mitigate pollution and manage natural resources but do not specifically address climate change as a distinct issue.
Government Initiatives
MoEFCC periodically releases reports on the state of the environment, which include data on climate change impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigation strategies. The Third Biennial Update Report (BUR3) from India to the UNFCCC, submitted in February 2021, details significant findings on the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation actions. In 2016, India’s GHG emissions were around 409 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, predominantly from the agriculture sector (73.96%). The report highlights various mitigation strategies, including climate-resilient agricultural practices like the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (“NMSA”) and Direct Seeded Rice (“DSR”), developed under the National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (“NICRA”) project. The NMSA promotes climate-resilient agricultural practices to enhance productivity and sustainability, while DSR, developed under NICRA is a water-efficient technique that reduces dependency on traditional rice transplantation, conserving resources and increasing resilience to climate variability.
III: The New Fundamental Right: Climate Change
In M.K. Ranjitsinh, the SC established that citizens have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under the ambit of fundamental rights.
Protecting Endangered Species
The recent ruling focused on protecting two critically endangered bird species listed on the IUCN Red List: GIB and the Lesser Florican. Both species are included under Part III of Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. These vulnerable species are under threat from various factors, including climate change and predators. The Court pinpointed overhead transmission lines as a major contributor to the declining population of these species. Gujarat and Rajasthan, home to the GIB, have extensive solar and wind energy potential, but high voltage power lines crossing their habitats lead to high mortality rates among these birds. The GIB ‘arc’ spans habitats between the Pokhran Field Firing Range and the northern portion of the Desert National Park near Jaisalmer.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
In a 2021 order, the Court imposed limitations on constructing overhead transmission lines, directing that a committee assess the feasibility of installing underground high-voltage lines on a case-by-case basis. The order mandated that all low-voltage power lines in designated ‘priority’ and ‘potential’ habitats of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) be installed underground moving forward. Additionally, bird diverters were to be added to existing power lines until they could be converted to underground lines.
The Court, in its April 6 judgment, relied on reports from the Wildlife Institute of India, which identified 13,663 square kilometres as the ‘priority area,’ 80,680 square kilometres as ‘potential areas,’ and 6,654 square kilometres as ‘additional important areas’ for the GIB. The Court modified its earlier order, concluding that a blanket direction to underground high and low-voltage power lines across 99,000 square kilometres was not feasible. It cited several facrors, including the minimal impact on conservation efforts due to other issues like low fecundity, habitat fragmentation, higher transmission losses, environmental issues, and the cost-prohibitive nature of undergrounding such extensive power lines.
Formation of an Expert Committee (“EC”)
India has pledged to increase its non-fossil-based power capacity as part of its international climate change commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. However, this commitment can sometimes conflict with conservation efforts for endangered species.
To address these challenges, the Court constituted an EC tasked with determining the feasibility and extent of overhead and underground electric lines in the identified priority areas. The committee is to facilitate conservation and protection measures for the GIB and other fauna specific to the topography, identify habitat restoration and anti-poaching initiatives, evaluate the potential consequences of climate change on GIB habitats, develop adaptive management strategies and ascertain suitable methods for laying power lines. High-quality bird diverters will also be installed according to the parameters set by the Central Electricity Authority. The long-term implications for the conservation of the GIB will depend on the findings of the court-constituted committee and the extent of undergrounding power lines to prevent bird deaths from collisions and electrocution.
IV: Need For Balance
As the world faces unprecedented impacts from rising temperatures, the Court’s decision holds significant potential for initiating actions that can adapt to the climate crisis. However, the judgment has flaws, which could undermine its effectiveness.
Balancing Renewable Energy and Conservation
The Court has highlighted the importance of harnessing solar and wind energy to meet India’s climate commitments, as outlined by the Prime Minister at the 2021 Conference of the Parties. These commitments include achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2070, and ensuring that 50% of total power generation comes from renewable sources by 2030. The Court’s endorsement of the energy transition towards solar and wind power neglects to address significant challenges, such as the economic, infrastructural, and social implications of rapidly scaling renewable energy sources.
Problematic Aspects of India’s Energy Transition
Firstly, the inclusion of large hydropower and nuclear plants under the umbrella of ‘non-fossil-fuel’ and ‘renewable’ energy is contentious. The construction of mega-dams in the Himalayas has led to destabilization and biodiversity loss. Nuclear power, shrouded in secrecy, poses risks of displacement and long-term contamination by nuclear waste.
Secondly, mega-solar and wind projects also have significant adverse effects. The Pavagada Solar Park in Karnataka has encroached on grazing and agricultural lands, disrupting local wildlife. A proposed 13 GW solar project in Ladakh threatens over 20,000 acres of a fragile ecosystem vital for unique wildlife and nomadic pastoralism. Unfortunately, these projects are often exempt from environmental impact assessments (“EIA”), leaving their detrimental effects unexamined.
The Need for Alternative Solutions