Context:

In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India recognized a human right against the adverse impacts of climate change in the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others vs Union of India. This landmark decision has generated considerable debate, with opinions divided on its effectiveness in balancing climate action and biodiversity protection. In a previous opinion piece, "The Great Indian Bustard and Climate Action Verdict" (April 17, 2024), the author suggested that the Court could enhance its decision by framing the issue through the concept of just transition.

The Concept of ‘Just Transition’

The concept of a ‘just transition’ emerged in North America during the 1980s and 1990s as stricter environmental regulations on air and water pollution led to job losses. Initially designed to support displaced workers, it has since evolved into a broader initiative aimed at creating and investing in socially and environmentally sustainable jobs, sectors, and economies. Today, it is integral to international climate action, particularly in the transition towards a decarbonized society.

Just transition litigation addresses the equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens associated with policies designed to achieve net-zero and climate-resilient societies. This type of litigation includes cases related to labour rights for workers in the fossil fuel industry, protection for communities affected by decarbonization policies, and opposition to subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Rather than hindering the energy transition, these cases aim to ensure that the shift towards sustainability is fair, striving for an equitable distribution of both positive and negative impacts while upholding human and environmental rights.

Advantages of Just Transition Framing

Facilitating Equitable and Inclusive Climate Action

The core issue in M.K. Ranjitsinh involves the protection of the endangered Great Indian Bustard from the impacts of solar and wind energy projects. A just transition framing would offer several benefits:

●     Equitable Climate Action: Critics of the judgement have pointed out that the Court's decision seems to position decarbonisation and biodiversity protection as adversarial. This approach implies that protecting biodiversity is a smaller public interest compared to the broader goal of decarbonising the economy. A just transition perspective would address this by ensuring that climate action does not disproportionately disadvantage affected communities or species.

●     Holistic Approach: Incorporating just transition principles would allow the Court to consider both decarbonisation and biodiversity protection as complementary goals rather than conflicting ones. For example, while evaluating the feasibility of underground power transmission lines, the Court could integrate the protection of the Great Indian Bustard into its decision-making process, ensuring that climate actions are inclusive and equitable.

●     Support for Responsible Energy Projects: Adopting a just transition framework would not imply halting renewable energy projects but rather ensuring that they are implemented responsibly. This approach supports the continued advancement of energy projects while addressing the needs of affected entities and communities.

Expanding the Concept of Just Transition

Inclusion of Non-Human Entities

The case provides an opportunity to broaden the scope of just transition beyond human communities to include the non-human environment. Traditionally, just transition focuses on human communities, particularly those vulnerable to the impacts of decarbonisation. This case could set a precedent by recognizing the rights of non-human entities, such as endangered species, within the just transition framework.

Development of Jurisprudence

By applying just transition principles to protect the Great Indian Bustard, the Court could contribute to the development of jurisprudence on the rights of nature. This aligns with the Court's previous eco-centric rulings and recent suggestions to recognize the rights of sentient animals and entire ecosystems.

Highlighting Existing Just Transition Litigation

Mapping Just Transition Cases

Introducing just transition principles in this case could stimulate research and awareness in the field of climate litigation. Despite its significance, just transition remains an under-researched area in climate law. The Court’s decision could act as a catalyst for mapping and analysing just transition litigation in India. This could enhance understanding and documentation of how these principles are applied in practice.

Filling Research Gaps

Many existing renewable energy cases in India involve issues of equitable burden-sharing but are not specifically categorised as just transition litigation. Integrating the concept into the Court's decision could highlight these cases and encourage further research into just transition litigation.

Conclusion

As global efforts to achieve net-zero emissions increase, just transition litigation is likely to become more prevalent. With 20 ongoing disputes related to renewable energy projects in India, equitable sharing of decarbonisation burdens is a central issue. This case represents a pivotal moment for integrating just transition principles into Indian climate litigation. By doing so, the Supreme Court could pave the way for more equitable and inclusive climate action, setting a precedent for future legal and policy approaches to climate change.

Source: The Hindu