06 Nov Climate Justice and Developmental Realities: The Global South Predicament in India’s M K Ranjitsinh
[Dr. Priya Kumari is currently affiliated with VIT-AP School of Law, VIT-AP, Amaravati, India and writes on business and human rights, environmental law etc.]
The interlink between human rights and climate justice has been going through a phase of transformation. In 2024, the Indian Supreme Court delivered the judgement in the case of MK Ranjit Singh v. Union of India (hereinafter, Ranjit Singh). It is hailed as a groundbreaking judicial pronouncement because the apex court formally recognized a previously uncategorized fundamental right, that is, the right to protection from negative impacts of climate change as a distinct fundamental right now protected under right to equality and right to life under the Indian Constitution.
For the readers/observers of Northern environmental jurisprudence, the ruling in Ranjit Singh was already integrated in the global standard of rights-based climate jurisprudence through the leading cases including Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Neubauer v. Germany and the widely acclaimed case of Association of Climate Seniors Switzerland and Ors. v. Switzerland.
However, when examined closely, the case discloses a far more complicated doctrinal reality. European judgements utilized human rights mechanism to justify regulatory rigor and impose required carbon budgets. The Indian judiciary on the other hand, invoked international climate pledges to rationalize the dilution of prevailing national biodiversity safeguards to pave the way for an already developing solar and wind infrastructure. Ranjit Singh has essentially revealed an unsettled normative conflict with the broader public international law system. That is to say, the friction among international climate change commitments under the global climate regime, robust protection obligation under global biodiversity conservation arrangements and the state’s sovereign right towards sustainable development.
The Shift from Avian Protection to the Importance of Renewable Energy
Ranjit Singh dispute started off as an exigent conservation issue. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court back in 2019 in order to seek immediate relief for protection of critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican. It was argued that the primary threat to their survival was the occurrence of accidents with overhead high-voltage electricity transmission cables covering their key habitats in the Gujarat and Rajasthan states. While the court was mindful of the technicalities involved in the procedure, it went on to mandate all electricity lines in and around critical habitats of Great Indian Bustard to be converted into underground lines. The said order immediately came in conflict with the larger energy transition goals of India. Moreover, both Indian states are India’s vital corridors for wind and solar power generation considering the unique features of the region making it indispensable for achievement of domestic contributions submitted under the Paris Agreement.
Naturally, the Union government argued for an amendment in the aforementioned order. They highlighted that due to issues pertaining technical viability restraints, additional financial expenses and overall risk to achieve grid stability, it was not feasible to go ahead with undergrounding of the transmission cables. Understanding the depth of the contention the then Chief Justice retracted the absolute mandate and sought the assistance of an expert committee to find a solution for the feasibility issue. Later, to resolve this unique ecological roadblock, the court put forth an innovative constitutional structure by interpreting India’s energy shift within the broader connotation of fundamental rights and global climate commitments.
Reversal of the Rights-Based Litigation Jurisprudence
The doctrinal importance of Ranjit Singh is found in the reversal of the usage of human rights principles in climate law jurisprudence. In the leading cases of the Global North, as mentioned above, the rights-based approached is used as a judicial mechanism to ensure executive action. For instance, in Urgendathe Court used Articles 2 and 8of the European Convention on Human Rights to interpret a positive state obligation to reduce emissions by 25%. In Neubauer, right to freedom was interpreted to avert present lawmakers from over-utilizing carbon budget only to jeopardize the right of future generations. And in Association of Climate Seniors, the European Court established a violation of Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights because of inadequacies in internal legislative frameworks governing the reduction of GHG emissions.
In all of the abovementioned situations, fundamental rights aided in restricting executive’s discretion. In Ranjit Singhhowever, these rights functioned in an opposite manner that is, by acting as executive’s armor. The Supreme Court categorized the right to be protected from negative impacts of climate change not to stop a state activity, but to authenticate the latter’s commercial arrangement of renewable energy sources over local biodiversity protection obligations.
By framing renewable energy set-up as a requisite element of the right to life, the Court inadvertently subordinated the immediate threat of extinction of native bird species to broader climate obligations. In other words, the Indian judiciary established a hierarchal framework within the environmental law structure by furthering the cause of climate change mitigation over local habitat protection.
International Legal Perspective
When seen from an international legal lens, Ranjit Singh dramatically appears in the fault line between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Article 8of the former convention mandates the contracting parties to establish systems to protect biological diversity and rehabilitate threatened species (wherever needed) in situ. The Great Indian Bustard is also listed in Appendix I of Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Parties to this convention aspire to protect them vigorously by trying to safeguard their native habitats and reducing impediments to migration and other factors threatening their survival. India is a party to both the conventions. Ironically, the COP13 under the Convention of Migratory Species was hosted by India of which the formal mascot was Great Indian Bustard under the theme, “Migratory species connect the planet and together we welcome them home”.
At the same time, India has submitted its nationally determined contributions and its updated goals under the Paris Agreement from time to time. One of the crucial commitments as laid down by India includes the target to attain initially by 40% and later, by 50% of electricity from renewable energy sources. The Indian Supreme Court’s decision was heavily based on the said goals (updated again recently).
Even the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties assumes that international law is not fragmented but is an integrated legal system wherein, if need be, treaty provisions would be interpreted with respect to “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” as reflected in its Article 31 (3) (c). Nevertheless, Ranjit Singh uncovers the geographical limitations of such a harmonious construction. The Court grappled with the migratory route of a critically endangered avian species; synthesis of legal order is almost impossible here. Thus, instead of using systemic integration techniques, the Court went on to confer pragmatic primacy to climate commitments under the Paris Agreement over other conventions focusing on biodiversity protection.
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Climate Constitutionalism
The justification for the Court’s balancing perspective can be located in the widely recognized principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities, articulated in Article 3 (1) of UNFCCC and later, by Article 2.2 of the Paris Agreement. The Indian Court did not provide any indiscriminate preference to clean energy but based the selection on the requisite of developmental rights as well as socio-economic justice.
The Court highlighted the importance of clean and affordable renewable energy is essential in upholding the principles of equity and poverty alleviation without which the disadvantaged communities would have to remain dependent on fossil fuels (para 18). Additionally, it also emphasized the urgency of climate action by referring to the disproportionate impacts of effects of global warming like heatwaves, floods and the like on marginalized communities (para 25). For India, the guarantee against adverse effects of climate change is not an aesthetic discretion but a mandatory requirement for survival. This case is illustrative of the novel climate constitutionalism needed for the Global South to balance the double necessity of domestic socio-economic development along with the attainment of net zero emissions.
Conclusion
Such domestic issues have direct significance for international tribunals. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea started off by clarifying state responsibility to prevent transboundary harm. Later, the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have also been clear in their opinions about state obligations under international human rights and environmental norms.
Ranjit Singh elucidates a turning point in comparative climate rights-based jurisprudence. It shows the application of climate justice is not uniform across the globe. In the Global South, where climate change is interlinked with a number of issues including the right to development and attainment of energy equity, constitutionalism can be utilized to expand the scope of regulatory mechanisms, further the goals of renewable energy and design an intricate and highly localized method to further immediate international commitments.
However, the judgement must be read and applied with precaution. Conflicts like these are not a one-time issue nonetheless, consistent interpretation to override local biodiversity protection with climate commitment can lead to accelerated biodiversity loss. As international tribunals have started their attempt at making the states responsible towards climate inaction, they must tailor guidelines for reconciling the two soon.
Topics
Source: opiniojuris.org
