New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the “right to a clean environment” and “right against the adverse effects of climate change,” The Indian Express reported. The court emphasised on the need to balance between “conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB)” and “the conservation of the environment”.
The bench gave the ruling on March 21 while hearing a plea to protect the GIB from losing its habitat due to power transmission lines. But, the order was uploaded only on Saturday, April 6, as per the IE report.
The apex court has appointed an expert committee to examine the scope, feasibility and extent of installing overhead and underground power transmission lines in areas considered ‘priority’ for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), as per a Live Law report.
The three judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed the committee to submit the report to the court through government by July 31. The CJI-headed bench said, “The committee may balance the need for preservation of GIB, which is non-negotiable, with the need for sustainable development, especially in context of meeting the country’s international commitments towards promoting renewable sources of energy.”
“By leveraging scientific expertise and engaging stakeholders in meaningful consultations, this approach ensures that conservation efforts are grounded in evidence and inclusive of diverse perspectives,” the bench added.
As per the Court the remit of the committee includes: “(1) determining the scope, feasibility and extent of overhead and underground electric lines in the area identified as a priority area in the reports of Wildlife Institute of India in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat ; (2) determination of the need for adopting conservation and protection measures for the GIB and other fauna in relation to the topography and desert features ; (3) identification of the measures to be adopted in the priority areas to ensure the longevity of survival of the GIB; (4) identifying suitable alternatives in the context of sustainable development in the issue of laying future power lines which will balance the conservation of the GIB along with India’s international commitments for generating renewable energy.”
Underlining the need to balance between “conservation of the GIB” and “the conservation of the environment”, the court said: “While balancing two equally crucial goals — the conservation of the GIB on one hand, with the conservation of the environment as a whole on the other hand — it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach which does not sacrifice either of the two goals at the altar of the other. The delicate balance between the two aims must not be disturbed. Rather, care must be taken by all actors including the state and the courts to ensure that both goals are met without compromising on either. Unlike other competing considerations, these do not exist in disjunctive silos.”
On the duty of every citizen, the bench said: “Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world.”
“The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These Articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change,” the bench added.
On climate change and clean environment, the Chief Justice of India Chandrachud-headed bench further said, “Despite governmental policy and rules and regulations recognising the adverse effects of climate change and seeking to combat it, there is no single or umbrella legislation in India which relates to climate change and the attendant concerns,” the court noted. “However, this does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change.”
“Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14).”
Notably, the IE report pointed out that a Supreme Court bench on April 19, 2021 had ordered “restrictions on the setting-up of overhead transmission lines in an area covering about 99,000 square kilometres and mooted conversion of overhead low and high voltage lines into underground power lines.”
However, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Ministry of Power, and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy later approached the apex court, seeking modification of its directions. The ministry had underlined that “India has given international commitments on transition to non-fossil fuels and reduction of emissions, and the area contains a large share of the country’s solar and wind energy potential. It was also contended that putting high voltage power lines underground was technically not feasible.”
Now, the court relaxed the earlier injunction. “A blanket direction for under grounding high voltage and low voltage power lines of the nature that was directed by this Court would need recalibration,” the court mentioned.
