Source: The Hindu

Introduction

In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India recognized a human right against the adverse impacts of climate change in the landmark case M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India. This decision has sparked considerable debate, with some viewing it as a significant step for climate action while others criticize it for not adequately addressing biodiversity concerns. The potential benefits of framing the Court's final decision through the concept of "just transition," arguing that such an approach could ensure more equitable climate action, incorporate the non-human environment as a stakeholder, and strengthen just transition litigation in India.

What is the Background and Court Observation of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India?

Background

• The case concerned a conflict between promoting solar power generation and protecting the endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).
• The GIB, a large bird found in arid regions, particularly Rajasthan, is critically endangered due to various factors including collisions with overhead transmission lines.
• A writ petition was filed seeking directions for the protection and recovery of the GIB, including installation of bird diverters and restrictions on overhead power lines.
• An interim order in April 2021 imposed restrictions on overhead transmission lines in an area of about 99,000 sq. km and mandated undergrounding of certain power lines.

Court Observations:

• The Court acknowledged India's international commitments to combat climate change, including the goal to achieve 50% cumulative electric power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
• The Court recognized for the first time a right to a healthy environment and a right to be free from adverse effects of climate change, derived from Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
• The Court noted the importance of solar power as a crucial step in the global transition towards cleaner fuels.
• The Court considered climate change litigation in other jurisdictions regarding greenhouse emissions and rising sea levels.
• The Supreme Court recalled its interim order of 18^th April 2021, stating there was no basis for a general prohibition on transmission lines for solar power distribution in the specified area.
• The Court held that undergrounding all power lines would not necessarily serve the cause of GIB conservation and acknowledged technical hurdles in such an approach.
• An expert committee was directed to be constituted to assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines, efficacy of bird diverters, and identify the number of bird diverters required for conservation efforts.
• The Court requested the committee to submit a report by 31st July 2024.
• The Court adopted a balanced approach between conservation of endangered species and the fight against climate change, recognizing the need for both environmental protection and clean energy development.

What is Just Transition Concept?

• Just transition is a concept aimed at making climate change mitigation actions fair and inclusive.
• It seeks to ensure that the burdens and benefits of moving away from carbon-intensive practices (decarbonization) are distributed equitably among all affected parties.
• The concept originated in the 1970s to protect workers whose jobs were threatened by increasing environmental regulations.
• International trade unions later introduced just transition into climate change debates, recognizing the impact of decarbonization on workers in carbon-intensive industries.
• In 2015, just transition was incorporated into the Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change.
• Just transition now encompasses not only workers but also other vulnerable groups such as indigenous communities, women, children, and minorities.
• These vulnerable groups are considered at higher risk of being adversely affected by the shift to a low-carbon economy.
• Currently, the concept primarily focuses on human beings affected by climate change mitigation efforts.
• Despite its vulnerability to climate change, the non-human environment (nature) has not yet been recognized as a subject of just transition.
• Applying just transition principles in environmental litigation could facilitate more equitable and inclusive climate action.
• Using this concept in court decisions could potentially bolster research on just transition litigation in India by highlighting existing cases.

What are the Advantages of Using Just Transition Concept?

• The Supreme Court of India's upcoming final decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India(M.K. Ranjitsinh Case) presents an opportunity to apply the concept of just transition to environmental litigation.
• The core issue in the case involves protecting the endangered Great Indian Bustard from adverse impacts of solar and wind energy projects.
• Framing the issue through a just transition lens offers three key advantages:
  • Facilitating equitable and inclusive climate action
  • Expanding the concept of just transition to include non-human entities
  • Foregrounding existing just transition litigation in India
• The Court's current framing juxtaposes decarbonization and biodiversity protection, presenting them as adversarial choices.
• This approach echoes the judiciary's existing stance in renewable energy cases, often prioritizing decarbonization as a larger public interest over affected plaintiffs' interests.
• A just transition framing would preclude such inequitable and exclusionary climate action, allowing courts to strengthen decarbonization efforts while protecting interests of affected communities and entities.
• This approach facilitates responsive mitigation action, ensuring burdens of decarbonization are not disproportionately distributed.

Can the M.K. Ranjitsinh Case Expand Just Transition by Recognizing Non-Human Entities as Affect?

• The M.K. Ranjitsinh case provides an opportunity to expand the concept of just transition by introducing the non-human environment as an affected entity.
• Traditionally, the notion of 'affected communities' in just transition is limited to human beings.
• By applying the concept to protect an endangered bird, the Court can introduce the non-human environment as a separate entity in just transition.
• The Court may draw on its own eco-centric jurisprudence on the rights of nature to support this expansion.
• Recent jurisprudence, including the Court's 2023 suggestion to recognize the rights of sentient animals, provides a foundation for this approach.
• Subordinate courts have already recognized constitutional rights of entire ecosystems, further supporting this expansion.

What are the Implications for Future Climate Action and Litigation?

• As countries move towards net-zero emissions, just transition litigation is likely to increase.
• Land Conflict Watch reports 20 ongoing disputes related to renewable energy projects in India.
• Equitable sharing of burdens and benefits arising from decarbonization is central to most of these disputes.
• The M.K. Ranjitsinh case represents a watershed moment for introducing the concept of just transition in Indian jurisprudence.
• Should the Court choose to apply the just transition concept, it will set a precedent for equitable climate action in both law and litigation.
• This approach would not necessarily be 'anti-energy transition' or 'anti-climate', but rather promote responsible and informed operation of renewable energy projects.
• The case has the potential to belong to a new category of climate litigation emerging globally, focused on promoting just climate action.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's impending decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India presents a significant opportunity to advance the concept of just transition in Indian environmental jurisprudence. By framing the core issue through a just transition lens, the Court can facilitate equitable and inclusive climate action, expand the concept to include non-human entities, and foreground existing just transition litigation in India.