Event Reports
Aashnaa Mehta
The IMPRI Center for Environment, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, hosted a panel discussion as part of the #WebPolicyTalk series, The State of Environment – #PlanetTalks. The event focused on “Transforming Climate Litigation: The Role of M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India in Shaping India’s Climate Policy.” The discussion explored how the landmark case has shaped India’s climate policy, with an emphasis on its broader implications for climate litigation and environmental governance.
Mr. Ashish Kothari, founder-member of the Indian environmental group Kalpavriksh and Visiting Senior Fellow at IMPRI, moderated the discussion, focusing on the judgements’ far-reaching impacts on India’s climate, development, and rights. Mr. Kothari began by reflecting on his initial optimism around the judgment, which was widely reported under headlines such as “Climate as a Fundamental Right.” While this seemed promising, especially regarding the extension of Article 21 to include the right not to be adversely impacted by climate change, he noted that a deeper reading revealed both potential strengths and several critical issues.
Mr. Kothari noted the judgment’s attempt to balance protecting the Great Indian Bustard with addressing the climate crisis. However, he questioned the courts oversimplified views on energy transition. While the judgment rightly emphasizes moving away from coal, it appears to endorse large-scale solar and wind projects without fully considering their ecological and social impacts, particularly on vulnerable communities and habitats. He also highlighted that the Court’s reference to India’s climate goals, such as achieving net zero by 2070 and expanding renewable energy, fails to acknowledge the complexities involved. Mr. Kothari expressed concern over the inclusion of nuclear and large hydro projects under the category of non-fossil fuels, despite their significant human rights and ecological costs.
Further, Mr. Kothari criticized the judgment for overlooking the downsides of large-scale renewable projects, such as the displacement of farmers, pastoralists, and wildlife. He questioned the lack of an environmental impact assessment for these projects and found it troubling that the Court did not demand such assessments. He also pointed out an interesting claim in the judgment that renewable energy would be more accessible to the poor, questioning the logic behind this, given that centralized mega projects still require extensive infrastructure that may not directly benefit the underprivileged.
Finally, Mr. Kothari emphasized the missed opportunity to address broader issues like luxury energy consumption, the need for energy demand restraint, and the potential of decentralized renewable energy. He concluded by questioning why the Court failed to advocate for more fundamental solutions that could truly balance wildlife conservation with the urgent need to address the climate crisis.
Ms. Bhargavi Rao, an independent researcher, educator, and environment activist based in Bengaluru, and a Visiting Senior Fellow (Honorary) at IMPRI, discussed the critical challenges related to renewable energy projects, particularly focusing on the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard. She emphasized that while renewable energy projects like solar and wind power are essential for addressing climate change, they must not be implemented at the expense of critical ecosystems and the livelihoods of local communities.
She highlighted that the judgment she was referring to opens the door for renewable energy projects across India in a manner that could be detrimental to both the environment and local populations. She pointed out that the transmission lines required for these projects often cut through important habitats, such as those of the Great Indian Bustard, which are not just crucial for biodiversity but also for the sustenance of local communities.
Ms. Rao shared her disappointment with the missed opportunity for adopting an ecocentric approach in the judgment, which she felt could have set a precedent for more balanced environmental decision-making. She cited a case where the Environment Support Group (ESG) had successfully challenged the diversion of over 10,000 acres of grasslands in central Karnataka for various projects, including a solar park. This case, however, despite its success, did not lead to sustained protection of these habitats, as subsequent developments continued to degrade the environment.
Her discussion underlined the need for more stringent and ecologically sensitive implementation of renewable energy projects, stressing that they should not be seen as automatically benign. She also criticized the broader legal and policy framework in India, noting that existing environmental protection laws are often diluted or ignored, leading to unchecked industrial and infrastructure development that threatens both natural habitats and the well-being of marginalized communities.
Advocate Lara Jesani, an independent law practice professional based in Mumbai and a human rights activist associated with the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), voiced her concerns about the recent Supreme Court judgment. While the judgment acknowledges the fundamental right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change, she feels it falls short in its approach. Jesani pointed out that the judgment, in dealing with the case concerning the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), essentially agreed to relax environmental protection restrictions in favor of renewable energy projects. This, she argues, sets a dangerous precedent that could pit sustainable energy against environmental protection.
Jesani is particularly troubled by the court’s failure to adequately address the reasons behind the GIB’s critically endangered status, specifically the loss of its habitat. She fears that this judgment could serve as justification for future large infrastructure projects that, while claiming to reduce carbon emissions, could lead to significant environmental degradation and displacement of communities.
Moreover, Jesani criticized the judgment for relying on the assumption that India’s environmental laws and policies are robust and sufficient. She highlighted that, despite having these laws in place, their implementation has been poor, especially in the past decade, where there has been significant dilution of environmental policies. The judgment also failed to address the erosion of public consultation processes and the exemptions granted to projects from Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).
When examining the Mumbai Climate Action Plan, there’s a notable contrast between the ambitious goals it sets forth and the reality of the city’s ongoing infrastructure development. The plan emphasizes the importance of public infrastructure, public transport, and various adaptation measures designed to address the challenges posed by climate change. However, simultaneously, Mumbai is witnessing a surge in massive infrastructure projects such as freeways, coastal roads, and flyovers, all of which contribute to the city’s cumulative environmental burden.
This dichotomy between the plan’s intentions and the actual developments raises concerns about the effectiveness of these climate action plans. One of the critical issues is that these plans are not legally enforceable. They primarily serve as a framework or a set of guidelines for local authorities, lacking the legal teeth to mandate adherence. As a result, they run the risk of becoming mere formalities or, worse, tools for greenwashing, where the appearance of environmental responsibility is given precedence over substantive action.
Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India and Visiting Fellow at the Sustainable Futures Collaborative, provided a nuanced critique of the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding climate change, focusing on three main areas: adaptation and resilience, guidance for future climate litigation, and the treatment of demand-side regulation.
Ghosh began by discussing how the judgment addressed adaptation and resilience, which are essential components of climate change policy. While the court recognized the importance of making vulnerable communities more resilient and better able to adapt to climate impacts, Ghosh pointed out that the judgment fell short of fully exploring these concepts. She noted that Article 14, which was referenced in the judgment, is particularly relevant to adaptation because it deals with issues of equality and non-discrimination, especially in the context of how different communities are affected by climate change. However, the judgment did not provide a detailed roadmap on how to implement these principles, leaving a gap in the legal framework for addressing climate change.
Ghosh expressed concern about the judgment’s lack of clear guidance for future climate-related cases. Although the court recognized a fundamental right against the adverse impacts of climate change, Ghosh warned that this right could be interpreted in ways that might undermine environmental protection. For example, she argued that a thermal power plant could claim that its operations help cool the environment, thereby making communities more comfortable in a warming climate. This could lead to a situation where the climate right is used to justify activities that contribute to climate change rather than mitigate it. Ghosh emphasized the need for the court to provide more specific tools and criteria for balancing competing interests in climate litigation.
Another critical issue Ghosh raised was the judgment’s failure to address demand-side regulation. She questioned why the court did not consider the underlying reasons for the increased demand for energy and resources, which drive many of the environmental challenges India faces. Ghosh argued that by not critically examining the need to produce more energy or resources, the court missed an opportunity to promote more sustainable practices. She suggested that a more fundamental rethinking of energy and resource consumption is necessary to achieve long-term environmental sustainability.
However, it’s also worth considering the potential positive uses of this judgment. Even if the rights mentioned are not central to the final decision, they are now part of the legal discourse. This could open the door for future claims, particularly in contexts where communities are directly impacted by climate change. In essence, while there are valid concerns about the judgment’s potential for misuse, it also presents an opportunity for future litigants to make positive claims based on the rights it recognizes, particularly in the context of climate change adaptation and resilience.
Ms. Tulika Gupta, Research Analyst & Coordinator at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), New Delhi, provided a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on climate change. She began by expressing her doubts about whether the court had explicitly articulated a right against the adverse impacts of climate change. Drawing on the “inversion test” from the case State of Gujarat vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association (2018), she argued that the court’s discussion on this right might fall under obiter dicta—statements made in passing that do not form part of the binding judgment.
Ms. Gupta emphasized that the court’s explicit order confined the legally binding portions of the judgment to specific paragraphs that did not address the right against climate change impacts. While she acknowledged the importance of such a right, especially for those in clean energy and climate sectors, she pointed out that this lack of clarity could pose challenges for future legal enforcement.
Gupta then turned her attention to the court’s discussion on the balance between conservation and sustainable development, specifically in the context of protecting critically endangered species while addressing climate change. She noted that the court’s articulation left much to be desired in terms of clarity, particularly regarding the enforceability of any right against climate change impacts. She raised the example of the residents of the Great Nicobar Island, who might struggle to enforce such a right if developmental projects threatened their environment. For Gupta, the ambiguity in the court’s reasoning underscored the need for legislative intervention to clearly define the scope and enforceability of such rights.
In her view, the Indian legislature must take the lead in articulating the country’s stance on climate change, rather than leaving it to the judiciary to make piecemeal decisions. She cited examples from other countries, like the UK, which has focused on emissions reduction through legislation, and contrasted this with India’s need to balance clean energy development with environmental conservation. Gupta stressed that this balance is crucial, as India moves towards its 2070 climate goals, where clean energy will play a pivotal role. However, she also warned that without clear legislative guidelines and a robust framework for environmental impact assessments, the country could face ongoing conflicts between development and conservation.
Gupta concluded by emphasizing the importance of data transparency and the need for a clear enforcement mechanism to ensure that India meets its climate commitments. She cautioned against relying too heavily on the judiciary to resolve conflicts between development and conservation, as litigation often stalls projects, hindering both environmental protection and clean energy development. Instead, she called for a comprehensive legislative approach that addresses these issues holistically, ensuring that India can effectively balance its environmental and developmental goals.
The Way Forward
The central issue is that climate action plans rarely challenge the prevailing developmental model. Without imposing restrictions on certain types of development or declaring moratoriums on activities that threaten ecologically protected areas, these plans cannot effectively address the root causes of environmental degradation. For instance, in Mumbai’s context, the protection of coastal areas and the rights of local fishing communities are crucial. Yet, rampant urban development frequently disregards these priorities, creating a stark disconnect between the commitments outlined in climate action plan and the reality on the ground.
To truly address the challenges posed by climate change, there is a need for a different kind of climate action plan—one that transcends the limitations of the current developmental framework. This requires a fundamental shift in mindset, one that is sorely lacking in current policy frameworks. A broader climate consciousness and movement are necessary to drive meaningful change, as relying solely on policy may not be sufficient. The intent of the government in implementing climate-friendly policies is often questionable, underscoring the need for a more proactive and community-driven approach to tackling the climate crisis.
Acknowledgement– This article was written by Aashnaa Mehta, Research Intern at IMPRI, who is currently pursuing her Bachelors in Political Science.
Read more at IMPRI:
Healthcare Sector Management and Governance: An Indian Perspective
