Introduction: The country received a significant boost in the fight against climate change as the Supreme Court made an important ruling. In the landmark order, citizens of India would hold everyone responsible if they do not do enough to reduce the effects of global warming. The Supreme Court also shared its views about climate change and the rights given in the Indian Constitution. In other words, the Court held that the impacts of climate change run afoul of Constitutional basic rights to life and liberty. What this implies is increased convergence at an inter-country level on the issue of human vulnerability linked to climate change.
The paper will outline the salient features of the said decision and its implications upon society in India. It will further highlight what this could mean in terms of advantages for India on the world stage in the fight against climate change.

Background and Judgment of the Case:
The case, known as 'M K Rajnitsinh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.', originated in 2019. The lead petitioner, MK Ranjitsinh Jhala, was moved to preserve the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard, the native bird variety. In 2021, the court ordered that all new power lines in the area be laid underground. However, companies working with solar and wind energy found this difficult and challenged the order for the new ruling. The Supreme Court recognized that the earlier ruling needed an update to balance development and protection of the bird's habitat. They constituted a seven-member committee to decide on the placement of power lines and protection of the bird's habitat.

This decision is important because it outlines clear steps to protect the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard, as well as those that protect citizens from climate change. The court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, first acknowledged and welcomed India's commitment to take action against climate change. The judgment meanwhile tries to correctly put in focus India's commitments made at the international level or its own set of green laws aimed at moving away from a fossil fuel-based economy for meeting energy needs.

The ethical point of the ruling has essentially hitched action on climate change to the fundamental rights given to the citizens of India under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It also refers to the non-binding directives under Articles 48A and 51A(g). The judges feel that the adverse impacts of climate change are inflicted directly on the quality of life. They say that with all the environmental protection laws, there isn't any particular law that guarantees every individual's right to a clean environment.
Cases of other Court Outside India:
Not only courts in India but other courts outside India also considered climate change and human rights. The verdict came from the European Court of Human Rights on April 9, 2024, that Switzerland didn't do enough to combat climate change. It also set up that Switzerland did not measure the greenhouse gas emission and did not establish appropriate regulation that would save the environment. That is a pretty rare case when the court judged that the government was at fault for failing to follow its law and for not providing a healthy environment for its citizens. While being extremely vital in their own terms, the decisions of courts in India and Europe reinforce and underscore how a government has to ensure that its people can live with a decent quality of life in an undeteriorated environment through positive action on climate change.

These cases imply that more and more countries began discussing the manner of dealing with the ominous phenomenon of climate change. India stands in no isolation, for even countries at all levels of economic growth started inserting rules within their constitutions to take climate change seriously.

The change is reflected in the United Nations: over 100 of its member countries requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice about how each state should shield its environment against climate change.

But it also illustrates a global shift: slowly but surely, from many quarters around the world, countries are moving beyond just plotting the plans needed to combat climate change in their homelands and pledge to work in cooperation internationally to combat an issue impacting one and all.
Importance of the judgment
The Indian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights view climate change through a very different lens. The Paris Agreement merely says that countries have an obligation to protect people's rights without explaining how they should balance the protection of human rights against fighting climate change. Very few countries have incorporated human rights in their climate work. The European Court has taken a more human rights approach and has condemned the Swiss government for not caring for its citizens. In this, the citizens are made central to the discussion.
The approach in the Indian Supreme Court has been different. While the Indian Constitution also speaks to the duty of the citizens and the government in terms of care for the environment, these rules are not legally binding. This judgment thus provided the enforceable legal framework for these laws so that anyone can now sue the government on grounds of non-action. The judgment inextricably links basic rights of citizens with climate change; the cases that involve climate change, by that very fact, become concerns of human existence and well-being. The judgment had hence empowered Indian citizens to take any one to task for not taking necessary action against climate change-an analogue of what the European Court has done in respect to the Swiss government.

Legal Consequences for India:

The environmental protection laws in India are not well coordinated; different parts of the environment have different laws. For that reason, if taken to court over such issues, they will only be talking about one part and hence leave the other parts either unprotected or to be taken to court differently. The laws related to air pollution, forest protection, and natural resource protection are all different and do not consider the whole of the environment and its impact on people.
It means that the ruling in this case looks more broadly at climate change, meaning future cases on climate change will look into the entirety of the environment, not just a part. This ruling, if applied properly, enables many more people who are badly affected by climate change to go to court without always having to depend on specific legislation. This decision may also broaden current environmental protection laws to make them far more effective based on what the justices of the Supreme Court have said.
This could be quite important, considering the diplomatic implications of the recent Indian court ruling. However, it may take some time for all those benefits to come aboard, but based on that particular decision, the country could yield a lot of influence.
This can help in international discussions for India to show its effort in fighting climate change and setting an example to other countries that may consider this kind of action. The consequence of this judgment is a way in which the judgment would be taken into consideration and applied to future cases. In fact, having the judgment, itself, it means that India is committed to taking action on these issues. Even though India is a developing country and it needs to develop industries, this judgment by the Supreme Court has brought to light the fact that every nation should show concern for their environment, not only economic growth.
How the judgment, besides changing environmental policy making thought process of a country, changes a thinking about human rights. This decision of the Supreme Court, in connecting basic rights of the people to climate change, resonates with a key issue that arises in the domain of climate politics: that of human rights and climate change. The UN has said that climate change is a threat to human security and peace. While the climate issue is getting grave, what this ruling does is gives a strong argument for linking both the issues. This would thereby relate the said resolution to future legal measures against climate change and also link this to human rights concerning food, water, and shelter.

Conclusion:
The decision helps give critical answers to questions on how to handle climate change since there is focus on people, not only about development or security.
It will define the issue of climate change lawsuits in the future in India by linking them to the basic rights of its citizens. The Supreme Court has set a parallelism between the quality of human life and economic growth. Such a perspective on climate change will also provide more substantial reasons for lawyers to develop stricter laws against climate change in the future.
It will globally help India strengthen her voice in the fight against climate change. This is one clear action whereby India is making good on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Internationally, India can boast of a strong legal ecosystem, progressive courts, and a close-to-global-standard set of laws. Moreover, it could inspire other countries into taking similar decisions and laws so that the world starts focusing more on people in the climate change discussion. This is now an opportunity for India to show whether it is ready to help in the protection of the planet from this crisis.

Reference:

Ajoy Sinha Karpuram (2024, 26 April). How Supreme Court Is Overseeing Conservation Of The Great Indian Bustard. The Indian Express. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-court-conservation-great-indian-bustard-9234896/.

Climate Change Recognized As ‘Threat Multiplier’, UN Security Council Debates Its Impact On Peace (n.d.). Commission On Consolidation of Peace. United Nations Organization. Accessed 25/04/2024. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/fr/news/climate-change-recognized-‘threat-multiplier’-un-security-council-debates-its-impact-peace.

Elena Kosolapova (2024, 20 March). ICJ to Rule on States’ Climate-related Obligations: How Did We Get Here? SDG Knowledge Hub. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessed 07/05/2024. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/policy-briefs/icj-to-rule-on-states-climate-related-obligations-how-did-we-get-here/.

Paris Agreement (2015, the 12th of December). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Organization. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015