Climate Change and the Right to a Clean Environment

Human civilisation and technological advancements have arguably made the Earth a better place to live, but they have also created complex problems. Climate change is one of these harsh repercussions affecting the present and future generations. The melting of ice caps, rising water levels, and irregular weather and climate patterns are now becoming a new norm.

India has also started to feel the consequences of such variations in its weather and climate patterns. The question of climate change had been in an abysmal position before the passing of the landmark ruling in the M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), which churned a big pivotal development in climate change jurisprudence. Despite this significant breakthrough, several grey areas remain regarding India's approach to mitigating climate change.

Climate Change Jurisprudence Across the Globe

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a multilateral treaty adopted in 1992 to limit climate change. It refers to climate change as a variation with respect to atmospheric composition due to human interference. The major design of this treaty is to equilibrate atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, which limits any climate intervention. It puts an obligation upon states to take action based on equity and, as per the principle of common and separate responsibilities, to protect present and future generations.

Since its establishment, it has constantly served as the foundation of climate negotiations like the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015). A global climate movement has begun by virtue of such key agreements, which have set out standards and regulations prioritising the environment in the form of measures like the reduction of carbon emissions, clean energy initiatives, etc. Though these agreements tried to embark on the domain of climate change, the non-enforceability of such pledges did not strictly bind the member states.

The joint statement by five UN treaty bodies (2019) considered a failure to mitigate potent climate change as a derogation of human rights. The movement of legislation of environmental jurisprudence commenced in 1976 by Portugal inspired over 150 nations to integrate this right into their constitutions or statutes.

In the EU, the European Climate Law legally binds member states in pursuance of its goal of climate neutrality. In the case of the State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2019), the Dutch Supreme Court mandated a decrease in emissions to safeguard rights as stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Similarly, in the United States, the Montana Supreme Court in Held v. State (2024) affirmed that the right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate.

Position in India Before MK Ranjitsinh’s Judgment

The initial position in environmental rights started to change with the enactment of various environment-centric laws, such as the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, the Water Act 1974, the Air Act 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) introduced Article 48A, which vested responsibility in the state to preserve and enhance the environment and protect forests and wildlife. Furthermore, fundamental duties added under the same amendment included a provision as to the obligation of citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.

The environmental rights were further strengthened by the genesis of Supreme Court jurisprudence acknowledging the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. The right to a clean environment was first endorsed as a facet of Article 21 in Francis Coralie Mullin’s case (1981). The akin right of existence in a pollution-free environment was conceded in MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987).

Additionally, the acknowledgement of the “Public Trust Doctrine” in MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath(1996) and “Polluter Pays” principles in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) was a clear indication of judicial intent concerning the sensitivity to the environment. These decisions were made while considering the need to balance development requirements with conservation initiatives. The court always sought to take every possible step in defining the role and responsibilities of the state in providing a clean and healthy environment to citizens.

These judicial pronouncements aimed to balance development with environmental conservation, emphasising the State’s responsibility to ensure a clean environment. However, despite the progressive expansion of environmental jurisprudence, India lacked dedicated climate change legislation or authoritative judgments specifically addressing climate change rights and obligations

MK Ranjitsinh Case and the Prospective Legal Landscape

The MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., judgment marked a transformative moment in India’s legal approach to climate change, integrating environmental protection with fundamental human rights.' In the historic ruling, the court gave a pioneering interpretation of this right to embrace a new implicit right against the adverse effects of climate change within the broad ambit of Articles 21 and 14. This case was initially with respect to the protection of the Great Indian Bustard, the court expanded its scope to address broader environmental obligations under various international conventions.

The court recognised such a right to comprehensively address climate change, which was not done despite the presence of rulings and executive plans regarding the same. The court emphasised the relationship between international covenants and constitutional principles to safeguard individuals against the effects of climate change. While previous judgments sought to link the environment with the right to life, this ruling propounded a separate right against climate degradation, especially when it disproportionately affects the poor, indigenous communities, and other vulnerable populations.

Importantly, the Court observed that the realisation of the right to life under Article 21 is incomplete in an environment affected by climate change. The court put an imperative obligation on the state to take effective steps to mitigate climate change in order to ensure the protection of another fundamental right, i.e., the right to health.

The establishment of a nexus between the rights in respect of the environment and equality is an integral dimension of this ruling. As per the perspective of the court, unequal repercussions on various marginalised groups in society and the incompetence of disadvantaged sections in the management of the effects of climate change make it a clear case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The critiques highlight the ambiguous scope of this new right due to uncertainty in the definition of adverse effects. Also, the global nature of climate change makes it literally strenuous for the state to protect citizens against such undefined adverse effects of climate change.

Recent Advancements

India has faced recent challenges in the form of varied monsoon patterns, irregular snowfalls, and other related climate patterns, making climate change a stiff problem for India. The diversified geography makes India prone to various climate change effects. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), introduced in 2008, is an integrated plan of action addressing the issue of climate change. It includes various missions such as Mission on Solar, Energy Efficiency, Water, Sustainable Habitat, Sustainable Agriculture, and Knowledge for Climate Change. These missions, through distinct targets, approaches, and mechanisms, are aimed at the united goal of limiting climate change.

The targets set by India’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) relating to the reduction of emission intensity and clean energy resource installation have been reported to be pre-achieved due to satisfactory growth in clean energy adoption. Also, the nation has pledged to gain net-zero emissions by 2070. As of today, in the Climate Change Performance Index, India stands in 10th position due to good rankings with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and climate policy. India has developed a future-centric plan for low greenhouse gas emissions, which includes various strategies for forests, climate adaptation, and resilience measures.

Renewable energy has become one of the bright spots as rooftop solar and wind energy have constantly gained momentum in recent years to reduce the share of coal energy. However, the continued higher dependence on coal power is a major concern with respect to energy efficiency. Energy efficiency standards have been significantly enhanced, but widespread access remains a challenge.

Despite these efforts, the study has regarded India’s emissions-intensity target as insufficient, as it needs improvement to comply with the global average. Experts have cautioned regarding the growth-oriented approach and the factor of increasing population as an impediment to the commitment to a carbon-neutral India by the proposed timeline.

Conclusion

India’s commitment to combating climate change is reflected in its multifaceted approach that blends policy frameworks with community-driven initiatives. Despite facing hurdles like population growth and economic needs, India remains dedicated to reducing its carbon footprint. While progress is evident, continuous effort and innovation are essential to meet ambitious climate goals. The ruling in MK Ranjitsinh’s case became a testament to this journey, which also guided the national approach.

However, the prospective scenario is not easy due to reliance on non-renewable energy sources and delayed implementation measures. The collective efforts of the government, industries, and citizens are pivotal in steering the country toward a sustainable and resilient future.

References

1. M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, 2024 INSC 280
2. State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation ECLI:NL: HR:2019:2006
3. Held v. State of Montana 2024 MT 312
4. Wildlife Protection Act 1972
5. Environment (Protection) Act 1986
6. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746
7. MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086
8. MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath AIRONLINE, 1996 SC 711
9. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 AIR 1446
10. Five UN human rights treaty bodies issue a joint statement on human rights and climate change,
    Available Here
11. Impact of Climate Change and National Action Plan on Climate Change, Available Here
12. Climate Change Performance Index: Top and bottom 10 countries in 2025 — where does India rank?, Available Here

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams