Supreme Court of India recently emphasized the intrinsic connection between climate change and fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. This pivotal ruling showcases the court’s proactive stance in broadening the interpretation of Article 21, aimed at ensuring a dignified and meaningful life for all citizens. This landmark judgment comes in response to a longstanding Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at safeguarding the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), primarily found in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
Background:
The PIL sought protection for the GIB, citing the alarming decline in its population due to frequent collisions with overhead power transmission lines, including those associated with solar plants. The court’s attention to this issue underscores the interconnectedness between environmental conservation, wildlife protection, and human rights. Moreover, the court’s focus on the GIB’s habitat aligns with the broader statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the environment, forests, wildlife, lakes, and rivers of the country, as enshrined in Article 48A and Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution.
Historical Context:
Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, has undergone a dynamic evolution through judicial interpretation. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the ambit of Article 21 to encompass diverse aspects essential for upholding individual rights and ensuring justice, reflecting societal realities and evolving needs.
Constitutional Framework:
- Article 21: Forms the cornerstone of fundamental rights protection, recognizing the right to life and personal liberty.
- Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the law, prohibiting discrimination and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
- Article 48A: Mandates the State to protect and improve the environment, forests, and wildlife.
- Article 51A(g): Impels citizens to protect and enhance the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.
Apex Court’s Previous Order:
In a previous order dated April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court had issued blanket directions for the undergrounding of high-voltage and low-voltage power lines. However, recognizing the need to balance wildlife protection with India’s international commitments to reduce carbon emissions, the Union sought modification of this order. The Union argued that installing solar panels is crucial for fulfilling India’s international obligations. In response, the Court constituted a committee tasked with evaluating the situation and submitting a report by July 31, 2024.
Relevant Legal Framework:
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling underscores the significance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, respectively. These constitutional provisions serve as the bedrock for environmental protection and the mitigation of climate change. Additionally, the court’s interpretation of these rights extends to the right to a clean environment and protection against the adverse effects of climate change.
Key Aspects:
- Recognition of Climate Change Impacts on Fundamental Rights
- Intersection of Environmental Conservation and Human Rights
- Importance of Wildlife Protection in Legal Frameworks
- Balancing International Commitments with Environmental Concerns
Landmark Cases:
- MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986): The Supreme Court recognized the right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life under Article 21, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection for human well-being.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000): This case highlighted the need for inclusive decision-making processes in environmental governance and underscored the rights of marginalized communities affected by development projects.
The Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 21 has addressed various critical aspects essential for a dignified existence:
| Case | Description |
| Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) | Recognized the right to speedy trial as essential for fairness in criminal justice, ensuring prompt verdicts in criminal cases. |
| Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India (1989) | Declared the duty of doctors to provide emergency medical aid to all individuals, expanding the right to health under Article 21. |
| Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) | Established the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life, safeguarding individuals’ means of sustenance. |
| DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) | Recognized the right against illegal detention, ensuring procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary arrests and detentions. |
| Chameli Singh vs. State of UP (1996) | Declared the right to shelter as fundamental, protecting individuals’ dignity and well-being by ensuring access to housing. |
| Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) | Held sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of gender equality and dignity, ensuring safe working environments. |
| Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors (1991) | Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection. |
| KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) | Recognized the right to privacy as fundamental, protecting individuals’ autonomy and personal liberties. |
| Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) | Declared the right to education as a fundamental right, ensuring access to education for all individuals. |
| Road Accident case (2004) | Emphasized the right to good roads as part of the right to life, ensuring safe transportation infrastructure. |
| Amir Khan vs. State of Gujarat (2012) | Affirmed the right to sleep as essential for human health and well-being, recognizing interruptions to sleep as a violation of Article 21. |
| Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011) | Held the right to die with dignity as an extension of the right to live with dignity, ensuring autonomy in end-of-life decisions. |
| DK Basu case (1997) | Protected individuals from torture and inhuman treatment, emphasizing humane treatment of individuals in custody. |
Supreme Court’s recent verdict on climate change, wildlife protection, and human rights represents a significant milestone in India’s legal landscape. By acknowledging the adverse impacts of climate change on fundamental rights, the court has underscored the need for balanced approaches to environmental conservation and climate action. Moving forward, it is essential to uphold the rights of both wildlife and humans while addressing the challenges posed by climate change.
Source- India Today
Read More-SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
