Integrating Environment Litigation and ESG Criteria into Corporate Strategy: Lessons from the Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment - MK Ranjitsinh Case

Article discussing: (i) Overview of the Supreme Court's judgment in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and (ii) Importance of integrating climate change considerations into corporate strategy.

___________________________________________________________________

The Supreme Court of India's recent landmark judgment in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. has established a critical precedent by recognizing the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision emphasizes the constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthy environment, reinforcing India's commitment to combating climate change while balancing the needs of conservation and sustainable development. This article examines the background, legal context, findings, and implications of this significant ruling.

Facts and Background of the Case

The case of M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019) arose from a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India, invoking its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 32. The petitioners sought urgent judicial intervention to protect two critically endangered bird species, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, both of which face an imminent threat of extinction.

The Great Indian Bustard, scientifically known as Ardeotis nigriceps, is native to the grasslands and arid regions of southern and western India, with the majority of its population residing in the state of Rajasthan. Over the years, the GIB population has seen a dramatic decline, prompting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to classify it as a "critically endangered" species since 2011. The primary factors contributing to this decline include habitat loss and degradation, hunting, predation, and direct disturbances such as overhead transmission lines, which pose significant risks to these ground-nesting birds.

The writ petition, numbered 838 of 2019, outlined several specific directions for the conservation of the GIB and Lesser Florican. These included the implementation of an emergency response plan, installation of bird diverters on power lines, an embargo on new projects and renewals of existing projects in critical habitats, dismantling of existing power lines and renewable energy installations in these areas, and the creation of predator-proof enclosures in breeding habitats. Additionally, the petitioners sought population control programs for stray dogs, restrictions on grazing in critical habitats, a prohibition on the use of insecticides and pesticides, and measures to prevent the encroachment of grasslands.

In a judgment dated April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court imposed significant restrictions on the installation of overhead transmission lines in an expansive area of approximately 99,000 square kilometers, identified as priority and potential habitats for the GIB. The Court mandated the conversion of all low-voltage overhead power lines to underground lines in these regions and ordered the installation of bird diverters on existing lines pending their conversion.

Following the 2021 judgment, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, along with other concerned ministries, sought modifications to the Court's directions. They argued that the extensive restrictions on power lines posed severe challenges to India's renewable energy sector and its international commitments under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ministries emphasized the technical and practical difficulties of undergrounding high-voltage power lines, the significant cost implications, and the adverse impact on India's efforts to transition to non-fossil fuel-based energy sources.

Global Jurisprudence

What the Supreme Court of India has pronounced is not novel if one surveys the international jurisprudence on the subject. Courts and tribunals across the globe have addressed similar issues. Most recently, on April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a significant judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. In a 16:1 decision, the ECHR upheld the rights of a Swiss association whose members, all older women, were concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health due to insufficient action by Swiss authorities. The ECHR held that the Swiss government's failure to meet emissions targets violated the petitioners' human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR's ruling is the first authoritative judgment from a supranational court that directly links human rights violations to insufficient or non-ambitious action on climate change. The Court declared that individuals have a right to effective protection by state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. The Court emphasized the causal relationship between climate change and the enjoyment of Convention rights.

Similarly, in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2019), the Dutch Supreme Court acknowledged the obligation under Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, compelling the state to adopt climate policies. The Dutch government was required to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its territory by a minimum of 25% compared to 1990 levels. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands recognized the clear link between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, highlighting the serious repercussions of a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius, which might endanger human rights and disturb family dynamics. The Court added that the right to private and family life extends to environmental issues where pollution directly impairs these rights, requiring states to take "reasonable measures to protect them."

Legal Landscape in India

Before the landmark judgment in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., India's legal framework already had robust provisions for environmental protection and wildlife conservation. However, the explicit recognition of the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under the Constitution was not firmly established. The legal landscape was shaped by several key legislations and judicial interpretations that aimed to safeguard the environment, yet a distinct articulation of climate change-related rights was lacking.

1.???? Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This act provides a comprehensive legal framework for the protection of wildlife in India. It includes provisions for the creation of protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, the regulation of hunting, and the protection of endangered species. The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican are both protected under this act, which aims to preserve their habitats and ensure their survival.

2.???? Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Enacted in response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, this act empowers the central government to take all necessary measures to protect and improve the environment. It serves as an umbrella legislation for various environmental regulations and standards, covering air and water quality, hazardous waste management, and pollution control. The act also provides for the establishment of authorities to enforce environmental protection measures and address violations.

3.???? National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This act established the National Green Tribunal (NGT), a specialized judicial body to handle environmental disputes and enforce legal rights related to the environment. The NGT has the authority to provide relief and compensation for environmental damage and ensure the enforcement of environmental laws. It plays a crucial role in adjudicating cases related to environmental conservation, pollution control, and sustainable development.

4.???? Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This act focuses on the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution. It empowers the central and state pollution control boards to set standards for air quality and regulate emissions from industrial and vehicular sources. The act aims to reduce air pollution and mitigate its adverse effects on public health and the environment.

5.???? Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Similar to the Air Act, this legislation addresses water pollution by establishing standards for water quality and regulating discharges into water bodies. It seeks to prevent and control pollution of rivers, lakes, and groundwater resources, ensuring the availability of clean and safe water for all uses.

6.???? Energy Conservation Act, 2001: Amended in 2022, this act empowers the central government to promote energy efficiency and conservation. It includes provisions for establishing a carbon credit trading scheme, promoting renewable energy sources, and setting energy consumption standards for industries and appliances. The act aligns with India's commitment to reduce its carbon footprint and transition to sustainable energy sources.

Despite these comprehensive laws, the judicial recognition of climate change-related rights under the Constitution was primarily derived from the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). Indian courts had progressively expanded the scope of these articles to include environmental protection, recognizing that a clean and healthy environment is integral to the enjoyment of fundamental rights.

Judicial Precedents: Several landmark judgments paved the way for the recognition of environmental rights. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court interpreted Articles 48A and 51A(g) in light of Article 21, emphasizing that any disturbance of environmental elements necessary for life would be hazardous to the right to life. In Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, the Court held that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment, free from pollution.

However, these decisions primarily addressed the broader right to a clean environment rather than explicitly recognizing the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. The legal framework before the judgment in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. thus provided a strong foundation for environmental protection but lacked specific articulation regarding climate change-related rights. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling filled this gap by explicitly recognizing the constitutional right against the adverse effects of climate change, setting a new precedent for environmental jurisprudence in India.

Court's Findings

In the landmark judgment of M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud delivered the opinion that significantly advanced environmental jurisprudence in India by recognizing the constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. The Court’s findings emphasized the intricate balance required between conserving endangered species and advancing sustainable development, particularly in the context of India's international commitments to combat climate change.

Recognition of Climate Change as a Human Rights Issue

The Court began by underscoring the existential threat posed by climate change, not only to biodiversity but also to human rights. Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution were interpreted to include the right to a healthy environment, extending this right to encompass protection from the adverse effects of climate change. The judgment highlighted that without a stable environment, free from the vagaries of climate change, the right to life and the right to health cannot be fully realized.

International Commitments and National Obligations

The judgment heavily referenced India's international commitments under agreements like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. These agreements obligate India to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources. The Court noted that the achievement of these goals is critical to mitigating climate change and fulfilling India’s international obligations.

Constitutional and Legislative Framework

The Court acknowledged the existing legislative framework aimed at environmental protection, including the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. However, it noted that despite these comprehensive laws, there had been a gap in explicitly recognizing the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change within the constitutional framework.

Balancing Conservation and Sustainable Development

One of the central issues addressed was the conflict between conserving the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and promoting renewable energy projects, particularly in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The Court recognized that while the conservation of the GIB is crucial, it must be balanced with the need to develop renewable energy sources to combat climate change. The Court emphasized that these goals are not mutually exclusive but interconnected, requiring a nuanced approach to policy and implementation.

Expert Committee Appointment

To ensure that both conservation and sustainable development goals are met, the Court appointed an Expert Committee. This Committee is tasked with evaluating the feasibility of various conservation measures, such as undergrounding power lines in GIB habitats, and recommending balanced solutions that protect endangered species without compromising renewable energy development. The Committee’s mandate includes determining the scope and extent of overhead and underground electric lines in priority areas, engaging with stakeholders, and implementing robust monitoring and research programs.

Specific Measures for Conservation

The Court’s findings also included detailed directions for the conservation of the GIB. These measures encompass habitat restoration, anti-poaching initiatives, community engagement programs, and the installation of bird diverters on existing power lines. The Court stressed the importance of using high-quality bird diverters to prevent harm to the GIB and other avian species, ensuring that these conservation efforts are effective and sustainable.

Right to Health and Equality

The judgment elaborated on the impact of climate change on the right to health, which is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Factors such as air pollution, shifting vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, and food and water shortages due to climate change disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, thereby impacting the right to equality under Article 14. The Court recognized that these adverse effects exacerbate social inequalities, highlighting the need for effective state intervention to protect these rights.

Global Context

The Court also referenced significant international cases, such as the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and the Dutch Supreme Court's ruling in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. These cases established the precedent for recognizing the link between human rights and climate change, reinforcing the necessity for national governments to take ambitious actions to mitigate climate change and protect human rights.

Implications of the Ruling and Way Forward

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. has profound implications for India’s environmental and climate policies. By explicitly recognizing the constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21, the Court has strengthened the legal framework for climate action and set a significant precedent for future litigation and policy-making. This decision is likely to influence various aspects of governance, environmental regulation, corporate behavior, and the implementation of sustainable development initiatives.

Strengthening Legal Basis for Climate Action

The explicit recognition of the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change fortifies the legal basis for climate action in India. This ruling will empower courts to hold the government and other entities accountable for actions or inactions that contribute to climate change and its detrimental effects. It establishes that climate-related harms can constitute violations of fundamental rights, thereby ensuring that environmental considerations are integral to the enforcement of constitutional protections.

Influence on Future Litigation

The judgment is expected to influence future environmental and climate-related litigation. By setting a precedent that links climate change to fundamental rights, the ruling provides a robust legal foundation for individuals and organizations to challenge inadequate climate policies and actions. This could lead to an increase in climate litigation, compelling governments and corporations to adopt more stringent measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Guidance for Policy-Making and Governance

The ruling provides clear guidance for policy-making and governance. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that integrates environmental conservation with sustainable development. Policymakers are now mandated to consider the adverse effects of climate change in their decisions, ensuring that development projects do not compromise environmental integrity. This could result in the formulation of more comprehensive and ambitious climate policies, regulations, and initiatives.

Formation and Role of the Expert Committee

The appointment of an Expert Committee to evaluate and recommend conservation measures reflects a practical approach to implementing the Court’s directives. The Committee’s task is to find feasible solutions that balance the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) with the promotion of renewable energy projects. This approach ensures that domain experts guide the implementation process, resulting in scientifically sound and sustainable solutions.

The Committee’s remit includes assessing the feasibility of underground power lines, identifying suitable conservation measures, engaging stakeholders, and implementing robust monitoring programs. By leveraging scientific expertise and inclusive consultations, the Committee’s recommendations will help achieve the dual goals of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

Impact on Renewable Energy Development

The ruling acknowledges the critical role of renewable energy in combating climate change and fulfilling India’s international commitments. By balancing the need for renewable energy development with conservation efforts, the judgment ensures that India’s transition to non-fossil fuel sources is not hindered. The Court’s emphasis on installing bird diverters on existing power lines pending their undergrounding reflects a practical solution to mitigate the immediate threat to the GIB while facilitating renewable energy projects.

Implications for Conservation Strategies

The judgment underscores the importance of adopting a holistic approach to conservation. The Court’s directives for habitat restoration, anti-poaching initiatives, and community engagement programs provide a comprehensive framework for protecting endangered species. The emphasis on high-quality bird diverters and the monitoring of GIB populations using advanced techniques highlight the need for innovative and effective conservation strategies.

Enhancing Public Awareness and Participation

The ruling is likely to enhance public awareness and participation in climate action and environmental conservation. By recognizing the constitutional right against the adverse effects of climate change, the Court has highlighted the urgency of addressing climate issues. This could galvanize public support for stronger climate policies and foster greater community involvement in conservation efforts.

Corporate and Business Implications

The ruling has significant implications for the corporate sector and businesses operating in India:

1.???? Regulatory Compliance: Corporations will need to align their operations with the new legal standards set by the ruling. This includes adopting more rigorous environmental protection measures and ensuring that their activities do not contribute to climate change or violate environmental rights.

2.???? Sustainable Business Practices: Businesses will be encouraged, if not compelled, to adopt sustainable practices and invest in green technologies. This shift could lead to increased costs in the short term but can provide long-term benefits such as improved brand reputation, customer loyalty, and potential cost savings from energy efficiency.

3.???? Risk Management: Companies will need to integrate climate risk into their strategic planning and risk management frameworks. This involves assessing the potential impacts of climate change on their operations and supply chains and taking proactive measures to mitigate these risks.

4.???? Innovation and Opportunities: The ruling can drive innovation in the renewable energy sector and other green industries. Companies that invest in renewable energy projects, sustainable agriculture, and eco-friendly technologies can benefit from new market opportunities and potentially favorable regulatory incentives.

5.???? Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): There will be a greater emphasis on corporate social responsibility, with businesses expected to contribute to environmental conservation and community engagement initiatives. Companies may need to allocate more resources to CSR activities that focus on sustainability and climate resilience.

6.???? Legal Accountability: With the strengthened legal basis for climate action, corporations could face increased litigation risks if their activities are found to contribute to climate change. This necessitates a more robust compliance framework to avoid legal liabilities and potential reputational damage.

Way Forward

The way forward involves the coordinated efforts of the government, judiciary, civil society, corporate sector, and the private sector. Key steps include:

1.???? Implementation of Committee Recommendations: The government must ensure that the recommendations of the Expert Committee are implemented effectively. This involves converting overhead power lines to underground ones where feasible, installing bird diverters, and adopting other conservation measures.

2.???? Formulation of Comprehensive Climate Policies: Policymakers need to develop comprehensive climate policies that integrate the protection of biodiversity with sustainable development. This includes setting ambitious targets for emission reductions, promoting renewable energy, and enhancing resilience to climate impacts.

3.???? Strengthening Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: The legal and regulatory frameworks must be strengthened to enforce the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. This includes updating existing laws and introducing new regulations to address emerging climate challenges.

4.???? Promoting Public Awareness and Engagement: Efforts should be made to raise public awareness about the impacts of climate change and the importance of conservation. Engaging communities in conservation projects and climate initiatives will be crucial for their success.

5.???? Corporate Sector Involvement: Businesses need to actively participate in climate action and sustainability efforts. This includes adopting green technologies, reducing carbon footprints, and collaborating with stakeholders to promote environmental conservation.

6.???? International Collaboration: India should continue to collaborate with other countries and international organizations to share best practices, access technical assistance, and fulfill its global climate commitments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. marks a significant milestone in India’s environmental jurisprudence. By affirming the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, the Court has set a powerful precedent for future climate action and environmental protection. This judgment not only strengthens the legal basis for climate action but also aligns national policies with global efforts to combat climate change and promote sustainable development. The way forward involves collaborative efforts to implement the Court’s directives, formulate comprehensive climate policies, enhance public awareness, and involve the corporate sector in conservation efforts.

?