The Supreme Court of India has given a landmark judgment by expanding the scope of articles 14 and 21 to include the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change.
This landmark judgment was passed by the Supreme Court bench composed of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Paradiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra on a petition filed by wildlife activist MK Ranjitsinh for the protection of critically endangered bird, the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican.
The Supreme Court in the past has ruled that the right to life is not just the right to exist, but also the right to a dignified life and recognized the right to live in a clean environment under Article 21 (fundamental right to life and right to equality) of the constitution. However, the recent judgment connected environmental and climatic-associated matters to the fundamental rights of the citizens. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court of India underscored the impact of climate change on people's lives and well-being.
The Supreme Court underscores that climate change impacts a person's life, and also violates many guaranteed constitutional rights such as the right to health and water, right to equality, right to housing and livelihood, right to personal integrity, and other rights. The court also pointed out concerns like increasing temperatures, droughts, crop failure, extreme weather events, shifts in vector-borne diseases, floods, and air pollution impacting the right to health and violating the people's basic rights.
The Supreme Court bench ruled that despite government policy, and rules and regulations recognizing the adverse effects of climate change and seeking to combat it, no single or umbrella legislation in India connects to climate change and the attendant issues. The court also ruled that the absence of such government legislation does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. Despite the fact these are not justifiable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognizes the significance of the natural world.
The conservation measures of Great Indian Bustard are in confrontation with the installation of solar and energy-producing projects present in the same area. The center asserted that the Supreme Court decision will hinder the Sustainable development goals to lessen the carbon footprint. The Supreme Court bench formed a committee to propose ways to balance both the conservation and protection of the Great Indian Bustard without impeding the solar and energy projects. The committee’s report is anticipated to be out by July 31.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Lavanya Beeraboina/MSM)
