Supreme court and great indian bustard

 Supreme court and great indian bustard

THE HINDU EDITORIAL ANALYSIS

GS PAPER 3

Background: The Supreme Court of India recognized the existence of a fundamental right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change. The judgment attracted significant attention, particularly regarding the protection of the Great Indian Bustard.

Case Details: The states of Rajasthan and Gujarat are home to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and have significant potential for solar and wind power development. Petitioners sought conservation of the bustard, leading to an interim ban on solar and wind infrastructure and overhead power lines.

Supreme Court Decision: The Court initially imposed a blanket ban on overhead power lines but later modified its decision, setting up an expert committee to assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines and identifying measures for bustard conservation.

Recognition of the Right: In a first, the Court recognized the existence of a right against the adverse impacts of climate change, derived from the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life (Article 21) under the Constitution of India.

Lack of Articulation: The Court recognized the right but did not articulate it further, providing time and space for a productive discourse on the right’s content. This restrained approach contrasts with the Court’s usual proactive stance in environmental cases.

Competing Choices: The judgment presented the central issue as two competing choices: protecting biodiversity or allowing climate action. This approach juxtaposed biodiversity protection and climate action as adversarial choices.

Alternative Approach: just transition framework to preclude this conundrum. The framework aims to make transitions to a low carbon economy more equitable and inclusive, considering the interests of workers, vulnerable communities, and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Advantages: The just transition framework can:

Preclude climate action and biodiversity protection from being pitted as adversarial choices.

Enable the articulation of more reflexive and inclusive climate rights, sensitive to the interests of non-human nature and ecological justice.

Position the case as a frontrunner in just transition litigation, potentially considering non-human interests.

Opportunity for Judiciary: The final decision of the Court is pending, offering an opportunity for the judiciary to use the just transition framework to facilitate inclusive and equitable climate action.

Shared Responsibility: The burden of articulating and enforcing the right against climate change is shared by the state, activists, litigants, and academics, who participate in the recognition, articulation, and enforcement of rights.