Former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described climate change as “probably the greatest human rights challenge of the 21st century”. Robinson is among the many climate activists who have been pushing for a rights-based approach to climate change. Though a bit delayed, it has dawned upon the Indian judiciary to lend judicial sanctity and legitimacy to such an approach. In an era-defining judgment that may redraw the contours of environmental jurisprudence in India, the Supreme Court has explicitly expanded the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution to include the "right against the adverse effects of climate change." This groundbreaking ruling also underscores the Apex Court’s willingness to interpret the Constitution in a manner that addresses contemporary challenges — the foremost among which is climate change.
At the heart of this decision lies the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, basically understood to guarantee equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, respectively. The Court has judiciously extended these articles to assert that a clean and stable environment, free from the ravages of climate change, is indispensable for the realisation of these rights. It is a well-understood fact that climate change woes affect one and all residing on this planet. Still more important is to understand the reality that vulnerable sections of society are the worst sufferers of climate change. This is very aptly summed up by Kumi Naidoo, a human rights and climate justice activist who once served as International Executive Director of Greenpeace International: "We are all in the same boat when it comes to climate change. However, some are in luxury cabins while the majority are drowning. Climate justice means throwing a lifeline to those not even allowed on deck."
Against this background, one is forced to applaud the Supreme Court’s verdict from a purely social perspective, given the degree of inequality and marginalisation that persists in India. By situating the right to a clean environment within the framework of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has emphasised the state's obligation to protect its citizens against the multifaceted threats posed by climate change. The concept had earlier been mentioned in Article 48A and Article 51A of the Indian Constitution.
Furthermore, the judgment's emphasis on renewable energy, particularly solar power, as a pivotal solution to combat climate change is both timely and insightful. India, with its vast solar energy potential, is at a critical juncture in its energy transition journey. The Court's acknowledgement of the necessity to harness solar power also aligns with India's international commitments under various environmental conventions and agreements.
The Supreme Court judgment serves as a reminder that the fight against climate change is not confined to the executive and legislative branches of government but extends to the judiciary, which can play a crucial role in shaping policies through its interpretations of the law. Moreover, by explicitly linking climate change to fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has opened new avenues for legal recourse for those affected by environmental harm. This could potentially lead to a surge in environmental litigation, compelling the state and corporations to adopt more sustainable practices.
The rights-based approach to climate change places human rights at the forefront of climate action. By framing climate change as a matter of justice, the rights-based approach demands that policies and measures to address climate change also protect and promote human rights. This perspective is rooted in international human rights law, which obligates states to prevent and address the human rights impacts of climate change, including the rights to life, health, food, water, and housing. In sync with these principles, the Supreme Court, through its pioneering judgement, has left a lot for the world to emulate.