The Constitutional Right Against Climate Harm: Understanding M.K. Ranjitsinh
Climate change affects life, health, livelihood and equality, but the Constitution contains no provision titled “right against climate change”. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280, the Supreme Court recognised a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change through Articles 14 and 21.
The case before the Court
The proceedings began with the urgent conservation needs of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican. Earlier directions had required undergrounding of power lines across extensive areas. Renewable-energy stakeholders sought modification, arguing that universal undergrounding was technically difficult and could hinder projects needed for decarbonisation.
The Court therefore faced two environmental imperatives: preventing bird deaths caused by overhead transmission infrastructure and enabling renewable energy that reduces climate-related harm.
The constitutional reasoning
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Environmental degradation can directly impair health, shelter, food, water and livelihood, making environmental protection part of meaningful life. Article 14 is also engaged because climate impacts are unequal. Poor communities, women, children, persons with disabilities and traditional livelihood groups may face greater exposure while possessing fewer resources for adaptation.
The Court read these guarantees with Articles 48A and 51A(g), India’s environmental jurisprudence, scientific material and international commitments. It stated that the rights to equality and life are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against adverse effects of climate change.
What the Court ordered
The Court did not impose one universal technical solution. It modified the blanket approach and constituted an expert committee to identify measures that could protect the species while accounting for the feasibility of undergrounding and the importance of renewable-energy infrastructure.
This remedy reflects proportionality and institutional competence. A constitutional environmental right can require effective State action, but courts must use reliable expertise when selecting measures involving ecology, engineering and energy policy.
Scope and limits of the right
The decision is significant, but it should not be overstated as a complete climate statute or a guaranteed remedy for every climate-related loss. A claimant must still establish the State action or omission, the affected right, causation appropriate to the proceeding and a legally available remedy.
The case was also part of continuing proceedings concerning conservation measures. Its recognition of the right and its March 2024 directions must be read with later orders or judgments in the same matter when determining the current operational requirements.
Practical implications
Public bodies should integrate climate risk into decisions affecting infrastructure, health, disaster preparedness and vulnerable communities. Decision records should identify foreseeable impacts, alternatives, mitigation and adaptation measures. Equality analysis should consider who bears the risk rather than treating climate harm as uniform.
Conclusion
M.K. Ranjitsinh connects climate protection to enforceable constitutional values without pretending that courts can design all climate policy. It requires lawful, evidence-based governance that protects both human rights and ecological systems.
Sources
Supreme Court of India, M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019, 2024 INSC 280, judgment dated 21 March 2024: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20754/20754_2019_1_25_51677_Judgement_21-Mar-2024.pdf
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 48A and 51A(g): https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
#ClimateRights #Article21 #EnvironmentalLaw