'Right Against Adverse Effect of Climate Change': SC Expands Scope Of Right To Life | Top Points

New Delhi: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the “right against the adverse effects of climate change”. In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has stated that climate change impacts the constitutional guarantee of right to life, stressing that India must prioritise clean energy initiatives such as solar power as citizens have a right to be free from the adverse effects of the climate emergency.

The judgment came on a petition by wildlife activist MK Ranjitsinh and others to protect the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a critically endangered bird found only in Rajasthan and Gujarat. The court recalled an earlier order of April 2021 that required undergrounding of overhead transmission lines across an area of over 80,000 sq km in the two states after the Union government pointed out concerns on feasibility of implementing the order.

Moreover, since the major solar and wind energy producing installations of the country fall in the same area, the Centre claimed the court’s directions will harm India’s global commitments to reduce the carbon footprint by increasing dependence on renewable energy sources.

How the Recent Order Encompasses Climate Change Adverse Effects Under Right To Life: Key Points

• The order passed by the bench formed an expert committee comprising independent experts, members of the National Board of Wildlife, representatives of power companies, and former and serving bureaucrats drawn from departments of environment and forests and ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE) to suggest ways to balance two objectives – the conservation of the bird and India’s sustainable development goals. The committee’s first report is expected by July 31.
• Accepting the concerns expressed by Centre, the bench headed by chief justice of India DY Chandrachud noted that without a stable and unimpacted clean environment, the right to life is not fully realised. 
• The bench further noted that the right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms, and flooding, drawing the conclusion that this hints that there is a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
• Discussing how tribals in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and such other indigenous communities that depend on nature, the court noted that the relationship that indigenous communities have with nature may be tied to their culture or religion. The destruction of their lands and forests or their displacement from their homes may result in a permanent loss of their unique culture, suggesting that climate change may impact the constitutional guarantee of the right to equality.
• If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones, noted that bench, adding that the inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life as well as the right to equality. 
• Clean energy aligns with the human right to a healthy environment, the judgment said, pointing out specific concerns of “unequal energy access” for developing countries like India, where women spend an average of 1.4 hours a day collecting firewood and an average four hours cooking.
• Stating that solar energy stands out as a “pivotal solution” in the global transition towards cleaner energy sources, the judgment said that it is imperative for countries like India to uphold their obligations under international law, including their responsibilities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and protect the fundamental rights of all individuals to live in a healthy and sustainable environment.
• Transitioning to renewable energy is not just an environmental imperative but also a strategic investment in India’s future prosperity, resilience and sustainability, the court said, adding that the promotion of renewable energy sources plays a crucial role in promoting social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy for all segments of society, especially in rural and underserved areas, which contributes to poverty alleviation, enhances quality of life, and fosters inclusive growth and development across the nation.
• While asking the committee to determine the scope, feasibility and extent of overhead and underground electric lines in the area identified as priority GIB areas and propose steps for long-term conservation and protection of the GIB, the court noted the dilemma of protecting against climate change and preserving the critically endangered bird. 
• For the long-term survival of the bird, the Court’s April 2021 order also required bird diverters to be installed along power lines. The court asked the committee to assess the efficacy of bird diverters and lay down specifications for it besides identifying and adding suitable areas for extending protection to the GIB, which is listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The apex court rouling has noted that states have an obligation to respect, protect, fulfil and promote climate change mitigation, adding that failure to take affirmative measures to prevent human rights harms caused by climate change, including foreseeable long-term harms, breaches this obligation.