Should climate change safeguards be enshrined as a human right? India’s Supreme Court seems to have resounded a definitive ‘yes’ in the case of M K Ranjitsinh and Others v Union of India and Others, setting a precedent for explicitly recognising climate change protections within India’s constitutional framework.

The case concerned the conservation of two endangered bird species threatened by overhead transmission lines spanning critical habitats. Revisiting an earlier order that prohibited such power lines, the Court faced the challenge of balancing species conservation with the efficient supply of renewable energy. The habitat area in question was geographically conducive to generating solar and wind energy, which, if left untapped, would impede India’s efforts to shift away from fossil fuels. This, in turn, would have implications for people’s access to cleaner energy.  Recognising the potential obstruction to electricity supply and its impact on people’s right to a clean and safe environment, the Court deemed it necessary to modify the previous order.

The case is significant because the Court explicitly recognised that individuals have a ‘right [to] be free from the adverse effects of climate change’ [27] under the Constitution. Despite the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, the Court construed this right as inherent to the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. This reasoning stemmed from the recognition that a clean and stable environment, unaffected by climate change and its impact, is essential to ensure the fundamental right to life [25]. By building on precedents that recognise the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21, the Court added a more nuanced dimension to the right to life.

Notably, the Court’s decision rendered otherwise non-justiciable duties actionable before the court of law. While Article 48A of the Constitution mandates the State to protect and enhance the environment, these duties are not justiciable per se as they are incorporated as Directive Principles of State Policy. Similarly, though Article 51A(g) outlines the duty of every Indian citizen to preserve the environment,  it is merely directive. Yet, through its interpretation, the Court intertwined this correlative duty with the recognised fundamental right, thereby expanding Article 21 to elevate these non-justiciable directives to the status of an enforceable right.

Moreover, the Court highlighted the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalised communities, emphasising that neglecting their plight would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 [25]. This implies that the state is duty-bound to ensure marginalised communities can adapt to climate change impacts, with failure to do so violating the right to equality.

Interestingly, the Court justified this rights-based approach by linking the State’s obligations to take precautionary measures to mitigate adverse effects of climate change under Article 3(3) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 (UNFCCC) and its duty to prevent harm and ensure the overall well-being of its citizens [13]. This implies that India’s duty to implement sufficient mitigation and adaptation measures for climate change effects is not limited to a matter of state policy but also a matter of rights.

This precedent has far-reaching consequences for future environmental litigation, as it establishes a clear link between climate change and fundamental rights. The ruling provides a strong basis for challenging laws that infringe on individuals’ rights against the drastic impacts of climate change, raising critical questions about its implications for future policies and legislative interpretations. However, the Court’s broad interpretation of the ‘right against the adverse effects of climate change’ leaves room for future clarification and development in this evolving legal landscape.

Secondly, the judgment impacts the government’s arbitrary exercise of discretionary power in matters relating to climate change. Without explicit substantive and procedural climate change legislation in India, the government has considerable discretion. However, this ruling places constitutional limits on that discretion, ensuring it does not violate people’s rights against climate change.

This decision also comes at a pivotal moment globally, as more individuals and groups seek legal remedies for climate change issues due to government and corporate inadequacies. By reinforcing the critical nature of climate change, the ruling potentially paves the way for new jurisprudence where people, socio-economic development, nature, and climate are equally prioritised. This judgment not only underscores the urgency of addressing climate change but also signifies a shift towards recognising it as a core legal and ethical responsibility of the state and its citizens.