• UGI USER
  • May 07, 2024
  • 3 Likes
  • 0 Comments

“UPHOLDING CLIMATE JUSTICE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT”

Syllabus:

  • GS-3-Climate change related cases and judicial intervention in this area

Focus :

  • The article critically examines the recent Supreme Court judgment extending constitutional rights to mitigate the impacts of climate change in India. It assesses the potential implications, flaws, and alternative approaches to addressing climate-related challenges, emphasizing the need for sustainable development and environmental justice in the country’s evolving legal framework.
  • In K. Ranjit singh and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., the top court has not looked into several problematic aspects of India’s proposed energy transition.
 Source-TH

Introduction:

  • The Supreme Court of India’s recent extension of constitutional rights to include protection from the adverse effects of climate change has sparked hope amidst a global ecological crisis.
  • However, a deeper analysis reveals both the potential and limitations of this judgment in addressing climate-related challenges.

Potential Implications of the Verdict:

  • The judgment has the potential to catalyze actions aimed at mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
  • It acknowledges the disproportionate burden of climate change on marginalized communities, providing a basis for corrective measures.
  • Recognizing the urgent need for renewable energy, the verdict emphasizes the importance of meeting India’s climate commitments through solar and wind power.
SC rulings in different court cases:

1.  Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991): The court recognized the right to a healthy environment and held that it is a part of the right to life under Article 21.

2.  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): The court took cognizance of the severe air pollution in Delhi and ordered measures to improve air quality, including the introduction of compressed natural gas (CNG) for public transport.

3.   M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997): The court addressed vehicular pollution in Delhi and mandated the conversion of all commercial vehicles to CNG.

4.   Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The court emphasized the “polluter pays” principle and held that industries causing pollution must bear the cost of remediation.

5.   In M.K. Ranjit singh and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., the top court has not looked into several problematic aspects of India’s proposed energy transition.

Flaws in the Judgment:

  • The verdict fails to address the adverse impacts of large-scale hydropower and nuclear plants, which are included in India’s definition of non-fossil-fuel energy.
  • Mega-solar and wind projects have significant ecological consequences, such as habitat destruction and displacement of indigenous communities, yet they are often exempt from environmental assessments.
  • The government’s continued investment in coal mining contradicts its renewable energy goals, perpetuating environmental degradation.
Installed energy capacity in India : 

Alternative Approaches Overlooked:

  • Decentralized renewable energy sources, such as rooftop solar panels, offer sustainable alternatives to mega-projects while empowering local communities.
  • The absence of demand management strategies in India’s energy plans highlights the need to address consumption patterns and prioritize equitable distribution.
  • The judiciary’s failure to consider rights of nature and indigenous communities undermines holistic climate action and sustainability.

Expansion of Positive Potential:

  • The expert committee mandated by the Supreme Court should explore less damaging alternatives to mega-projects, including decentralized energy solutions.
  • Evaluating the compatibility of infrastructure projects with indigenous rights and cultural preservation is essential to ensure sustainable development.

Challenges in Indian Development Model:

  • India’s development model, focused on large-scale industrial projects, often disregards environmental and social considerations, leading to deforestation and displacement of indigenous communities.
  • The judiciary’s reluctance to challenge ecologically harmful projects perpetuates the status quo and hinders progress towards sustainability and justice.

Conclusion:

  • While the Supreme Court’s verdict on climate justice holds promise, its effectiveness depends on addressing underlying flaws and embracing alternative approaches to sustainable development.
  • Upholding the rights of nature and marginalized communities is essential for achieving climate resilience and environmental justice in India.

Source: The Hindu

Associated articles :

https://universalinstitutions.com/the-global-way-out/

Mains Practice Question :

GS-3

“Critically analyze the Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment extending constitutional rights to protect citizens from the adverse effects of climate change. Discuss the potential implications, limitations, and alternative approaches for addressing climate-related challenges in the Indian context.(250 words)